Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Scottish Special Housing Association

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses the Scottish Special Housing Association has under construction; and what further contracts have been awarded to it.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): The Scottish Special Housing Association has 3,286 houses under construction. Tenders for a further 184 houses have been approved while authority in principle has been given to the Association to build a further 4,000 houses.

Mr. Bence: Are not these figures rather disappointing for the Association? Is it tendering to build any houses for the new town Development Corporation of Cumbernauld? If it is not building houses for the Development Corporation, can the hon. Gentleman say why not?

Mr. Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard from my Answer, the numbers for which tenders have been approved are very small in proportion to the total numbers in the authorisation ahead. I assure him that most of the building is proposed for the growth areas, in which the new towns are situated. The Association has a potential overspill building commitment of about 6,000 houses, and it is also engaged in the provision of 4,900 houses, mainly on redevelopment sites in Glasgow.

Mr. Bence: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my supplementary

question? Is the Association building any houses for the Development Corporation of Cumbernauld.

Mr. Campbell: I could not answer that without notice.

Forth Road Bridge (Tolls)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many objections have been lodged against the proposal of the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board for a uniform toll charge of 2s. 6d. per vehicle; and if he will make a statement about the need for a public inquiry.

Mr. G. Campbell: Two objections have been lodged so far; and five letters have been received containing comments on the proposed toll schedule. Objections can, however, be submitted until 20th March, and my right hon. Friend cannot yet say whether a public inquiry will be necessary.

Mr. Gourlay: Since it is the Government's intention to impose tolls, and if it is the Secretary of State's intention not to accept the recommendation of the Joint Board to impose a 2s. 6d. flat toll, will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Secretary of State's decision will be made before the General Election?

Mr. Campbell: The Secretary of State would hope to make his decision as soon as possible after the period for objections has come to an end.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Are the objectors asking for increased tolls or for the abolition of tolls?

Mr. Campbell: The objectors are against the principle of tolls and not against the rate proposed by the Joint Board or any other rate.

Sir J. Gilmour: Could my right hon. Friend circulate information about what the savings will be with the proposed 2s. 6d. toll compared with the ferry?

Mr. Campbell: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be perfectly prepared to consider that.

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will set up a committee of inquiry into Forth Road Bridge tolls.

Mr. G. Campbell: No, Sir. When the closing date for objections to the proposed toll schedule is reached on 20th March, my right hon. Friend will consider whether there is any need for a public inquiry under the Forth Road Bridge Order.

Dr. Thompson: At the risk of being repetitive—but one has to repeat things to make the Government understand—may I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that the majority of Scottish people are opposed to this method of imposing tolls on the Forth Road Bridge? They regard it as an obsolete and inefficient way of financing the road. It imposes delays on transport and burdens on motorists who are already heavily taxed, and adds an extra burden to industry. Only recently 10,000 motorists in Scotland signed a petition objecting to it. Will the hon. Gentleman tell his right hon. Friend that if he wants to go out of office in a blaze of glory he should, before the General Election, as a final courageous gesture, abolish this toll and let road transport flow as freely across the Forth Road Bridge as it does along the M.1?

Mr. Campbell: I could not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out on an earlier supplementary question, on the toll proposed the motorist will pay considerably less than he now pays on the ferry or in buying petrol to drive round.

Traffic Police (Tape Recorders)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to equip traffic police with tape recorders, as an experiment for charging drunken drivers, with a view to facilitating convictions at courts as a result of the submission of the tape.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir): No, Sir, not at present, because meantime I think that better evidence can be obtained by existing methods.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the noble Lady aware that there are one or two authorities which cannot get a doctor to testify in court against a drunk driver because he is, in some cases, humiliated by Smart Alec lawyers looking for escape clauses in the law? Is she further aware that

by playing the tape the sound of the voice could help the court to decide the condition of the person concerned, and would not it be a deterrent to drunken driving? Will she bear in mind that in other countries this experiment has proved quite a remarkable success and have another look at it?

Lady Tweedsmuir: I said "not at present" but there is a view that to take tape recordings of speech is not necessarily reliable evidence of, for example, slurred speech, and that existing methods are more satisfactory.

New Training Colleges (Contracts)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the contract for the two new training colleges of education was given to an English firm without competitive tender, when Scottish firms who have done similar building work for the Department were ignored; and if he will reverse this policy.

Lady Tweedsmuir: No Scottish firm has constructed similar buildings for my right hon. Friend's Department. The urgency of these projects—which must be ready to take in students in October—precluded the use of normal competitive tendering.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Under-Secretary aware that I have in my hand evidence from two most reputable Scottish firms who state that this argument used by the Department is fatuous and that one of them has had experience of this type of structure on behalf of the Scottish Education Department? Will the hon. Lady bear in mind that it is being alleged that one of the reasons for this state of affairs is that the representative of the London firm which got these contracts without competitive tender was a former official of the Scottish Education Department? Will the Under-Secretary investigate this matter and assure the House that Scottish firms will get fair play in future?

Lady Tweedsmuir: I am not at all aware of that allegation. The hon. Member will, no doubt, know that there was a question of urgency in the building of these projects because originally it had been hoped to adapt existing buildings, and at that time there was no firm which was known to have the exact ability and experience—

Mr. Dempsey: There were two firms.

Lady Tweedsmuir: —to build these colleges, which must be ready by October.

Miss Harvie Anderson: While these colleges are being constructed, will my hon. Friend use her influence to the greatest possible extent to ensure that Scottish equipment and materials are used so that the maximum amount of Scottish labour can be behind this project?

Lady Tweedsmuir: Yes. In fact, 70 per cent. of the cost is being used locally in materials and equipment.

Mr. Ross: This is a serious matter when, because of the call of urgency, we have to depart from safeguarding procedures in the way of tendering. Would not the hon. Lady be right to apologise to the House because, obviously, the urgency in this case was because the Scottish Department had been dilatory and incompetent?

Lady Tweedsmuir: No, I do not accept that. A great deal of thought had gone into seeing whether it was possible to adapt existing buildings. When that was found not to be practical, these tenders were given.

Pulpwood Chips (Transport by pipeline)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will institute an inquiry into the problem of the transportation of pulpwood chips in pipelines as a means of helping the development of Scottish forestry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. A. Stodart): No, Sir. The possibility of this form of transport has been considered by the Forestry Commission and by users of pulpwood chips, but it seems clear that there would be no advantage in using pipelines in Scottish conditions.

Sir J. Gilmour: Will my hon. Friend reconsider this matter, because experience in other countries shows that very large capacity vehicles are needed to transport timber, which puts a heavy burden on the roads, and, in addition, more forest roads have to be constructed to extract the timber? Will my hon. Friend please look at the matter again?

Mr. Stodart: It is true that in the United States, for example, large quantities of chips can be concentrated for transport by pipeline. It has, however, been found that the economical factor is that in Canada and the United States the forests are sufficiently concentrated to provide the necessary timber from 1,500 sq. miles, whereas in this country the forests to provide the necessary chips cover about 13,000 sq. miles. It would not, therefore, be practicable or economical to do what, admittedly, has been successful in other countries.

Mr. Steele: How is it possible to fill a pipeline with chips when it is already choked with jobs?

Hospitals, Edinburgh (Oil Supplies)

Mr. J. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name the oil company which received the contract to supply the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and the Western General Hospital with fuel oil; and what assurance this company gave of fixed prices for future years.

Mr. Stodart: No contract has been placed; none of the oil companies quoted fixed prices for the future.

Mr. Hill: Is the Minister aware that the importation of oil last year upset the balance of payments by over £500 million and that while the Secretary of State had no fixed prices from the oil companies, he got fixed prices from the Coal Board? As the refineries provide only 2,000 jobs here whereas the Coal Board provides over half a million, was it not a mistake not to give the contract to the Coal Board?

Mr. Stodart: The hon. Member will, I think, agree that I have done my best to explain the factors on which we reached a decision, namely, that despite all these considerations at the end of the day the economic factor was greater than the marginal one which we felt would be justified.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that when he explained the position in the Adjournment debate a few weeks ago, he compared the fixed-price tendering of the National Coal Board with estimates of what the oil might cost some years hence? Is he


not aware that no reasonable person could accept that as an explanation? Did not the kind of explanation which he gave on that occasion suggest to the people of Scotland that there was definite, deliberate bias in favour of one of the offerers?

Mr. Stodart: It is true, and it was made clear, that there was a fixed offer from the Coal Board of the same price for two years from January, 1967, and that there was also the question of the rebate offered by the Board. It is equally true that no fixed price was quoted for oil. I accept that this is not a strictly like comparison—it is impossible to make absolutely like comparisons for a speculative future—but it is, perhaps, unfair and unreasonable necessarily to assume that oil will not come down in price. It is just as possible that it could. This is one of the intangibles.

World Health Organisation (Research Centre)

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the possibility of providing a site in Scotland for the proposed new World Health Organisation Research Centre; what replies he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stodart: My right hon. Friend has received six letters and the Scottish T.U.C. has discussed the matter with me. The World Health Organisation has not yet reached a decision on this project; but if it goes ahead my right hon. Friend will make sure that Scotland's claims to provide a suitable site are closely considered. Replies in this sense are being sent to the representations received.

Dr. Thompson: Will the Under-Secretary bear in mind, however, the great urgency of this matter and that although discussions are taking place in Geneva, bids are being submitted by member countries? Czechoslovakia has staked a claim and France, Italy and Austria are expected to make claims for sites this week. In view of the fact that for many years the United Kingdom has conscientiously paid its dues to the United Nations without ever having a single major agency situated in this country, this is a unique opportunity to

bring to Scotland a great research centre costing £100 million and employing more than 1,000 scientists. This could be one of the biggest things for Scotland for many years. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that although negotiations are proceeding in Geneva, this is a matter of the utmost urgency here and now?

Mr. Stodart: I assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend will take urgent note of what he has said.

Mr. Brewis: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this project would provide many useful jobs for trained personnel whom we would like to keep in Scotland?

Mr. Stodart: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ross: This is an appropriate agency to have in Scotland in view of all our traditions in this kind of work. While we thank the Under-Secretary for his Answer, may I ask him to urge upon his right hon. Friend when—or if—he sees him that we would be glad if he would raise some greater spark of enthusiasm within the Cabinet for British support of this scheme?

Mr. Stodart: I assure the hon. Member that I shall see my right hon. Friend. Unlike the hon. Member, I am not aware of what sparks are or are not raised within the Cabinet.

Motoring Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will instruct procurators fiscal not to waive prosecutions against diplomatic or consular personnel who break or ignore parking or other traffic rules and regulations in Scotland.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Procurators fiscal are instructed by the Lord Advocate and there are standing instructions by which, where diplomatic immunity is claimed and there is any doubt as to the person's entitlement to claim it, the case is referred to the Crown Office for consideration. Diplomatic immunity from prosecution derives from the law, not from the prosecutor's direction.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does my hon. Friend realise that there are 6,000 people


in the United Kingdom who can claim diplomatic immunity and that in London the policy seems to be to waive charges for traffic offences committed by these people? Does not my hon. Friend agree that this would be a bad policy for Scotland and that diplomatic immunity should be confined only to ambassadors and high commissioners and their immediate staffs and not to general hangers-on and bottle-washers?

Lady Tweedsmuir: Diplomatic immunity is granted on a reciprocal basis and has good reason behind it. Neither my right hon. Friend nor the Lord Advocate has received representations about difficulties in Scotland.

Jordanhill Training College (Fire)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has held an inquiry into the cause of the fire which destroyed the recently constructed building at Jordanhill Training College; and if he will make a statement.

Lady Tweedsmuir: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has not held an inquiry into the cause of this fire but the local fire authority told him, however, that it was caused by the ignition of a gymnasium mattress, which had been left near or in contact with an electric heater.

Mr. Hannan: What steps does the hon. Lady and the Secretary of State propose to take to draw attention precisely to the increasing number of fires resulting from electrical faults? Will she draw the Secretary of State's attention to the provisions of the Building Regulations which went through this House recently insisting on greater protection in these cases?

Lady Tweedsmuir: Yes, Sir.

Artificial Limbs

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the supply of artificial limbs to National Health Service patients in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stodart: In general the arrangements for the supply of artificial limbs to National Health Service patients in Scotland are working well. There have been

some difficulties in particular cases and delivery periods have been longer than my right hon. Friend would have liked. Considerable efforts are being made to improve this, and my right hon. Friend will not be satisfied until these efforts have been successful.

Dr. Mabon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable delays in the Edinburgh area in particular—part of which he represents—and also in certain of the smaller burghs in the west of Scotland, one of which I represent? Is he further aware that delay applies especially to surgical boots? Is he also aware of the concern that the delays are caused because so few firms supply these articles? Will he look at the question of the near monopoly position as being perhaps the reason for the delays?

Mr. Stodart: I am aware of the case which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. It arose in my constituency and naturally I took particular interest. I will look into the question of surgical boots, but since 1961 their supply has improved considerably. My right hon. Friend will naturally go on doing his best.

Miss Harie Anderson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the good work done by the Princess Louise Scottish Hospital in the construction of surgical boots and remember that its order book is never wholly full?

Mr. Stodart: I will take note of that.

First Offenders (Remands in Custody)

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons in Scotland in the last 12 months have, under the First Offenders Act, been held in prison pending consideration of sentence; and how many thereafter have not been given a custodial sentence.

Lady Tweedsmuir: My right hon. Friend regrets that this information could not be obtained without undue labour. Relevant information will be obtained from the investigation which the Lord Advocate and my right hon. Friend are undertaking into remands in custody.

Mr. Ross: Does not the hon. Lady appreciate that the labour would be well worth while if it threw some light on


the statistics which have caused considerable concern in Scotland and apprised the law officers of that concern?
I should like to say at this point how much I personally regret the resignation of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries (Mr. D. C. Anderson) from the office of Solicitor-General for Scotland on grounds of ill-health and to express the hope that he will make a speedy recovery.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
It is hoped to have the figures of the investigation analysed by the end of next month.

Sir T. Moore: Will my hon. Friend ensure that, as far as possible in any case, no first offender is ever sent to prison while awaiting sentence or even while awaiting admission to Borstal?

Lady Tweedsmuir: That is hardly my responsibility.

Central Scotland

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress made with the plan for the development of Central Scotland.

Mr. G. Campbell: In reply to Question on 29th January, my right hon. Friend circulated a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and he proposes to publish a comprehensive review of progress later in the year. Meanwhile I should be happy to see that the hon. Member gets information on any specific point of which he cares to give notice.

Mr. Rankin: I have studied that reply given on 29th January. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me in what way a change of ownership at Turnhouse Airport will affect employment in Scotland one way or another? Can he also say whether an increase in the budget expenditure of £4·2 million indicates the completion of a great deal of actual work by the end of 1965? Could he also say how the attempt to form joint working teams of the central Department and the local authorities is progressing in order to produce a phased programme of action?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has raised three points arising from the report circulated seven weeks ago, and in order to make sure that he gets up-to-the-minute information I shall be glad to inform him as soon as I can of the very latest developments. Now I can only say, on the last point he raised, that this is a matter which my noble Friend the Minister of State put to the local authority representatives, who agreed to consider it.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When an hon. Member puts a Question of this nature, which is based on a statement made two months ago, is it not in order that he should expect an answer that shows that the Minister has some knowledge of what is taking place in his own Department?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that that raises no point of order.

East Kilbride (Transport Facilities)

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if as part of the development plan for Central Scotland, he has yet made the reappraisal of the need for continued and improved transport facilities to serve East Kilbride, as suggested by the hon. Member for Lanark on 8th January.

Mr. G. Campbell: As regards rail and bus services, I would refer the hon. Member to the letter which my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport sent to her on 13th March. As regards roads, certain improvement work is at preent taking place and other improvements are in prospect.

Mrs. Hart: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him why the Secretary of State himself has not replied to my letter of two months ago? The letter was addressed separately to him and not to the Minister of Transport. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Transport said that despite the naming of East Kilbride as a major growth point in the plan for the economic growth of Central Scotland, it is not possible for the Government even to look at the transport services needed for it? Is not that an utterly ludicrous situation? Is he further aware that my


views on this matter are those of the people of the new town of East Kilbride and that they are shared by the Unionist and Conservative Association in my constituency.

Mr. Campbell: Most of the points which the hon. Lady raised in her letter to the Secretary of State fell within the responsibility of the Minister of Transport, who therefore replied to her. We are as concerned as she is to improve the road and rail communications in and around East Kilbride.

Mrs. Hart: Why does the hon. Gentleman hold that consideration of the policy of the economic growth of Central Scotland is a matter for the Minister of Transport? It was the link between that policy and the rail facilities of East Kilbride that I inquired about in the letter?

Mr. Campbell: My right hon. Friend will be very glad to write to the hon. Lady about any outstanding points concerning the growth area. The particular matters in her letter were about communications and, therefore, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport replied. That is the explanation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, of course, take up any point which concerns him regarding the growth area.

Miss Harvie Anderson: In view of my hon. Friend's earlier reply, will he undertake to impress upon the Minister of Transport the need to retain the line which the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) and I are so concerned about?

Mr. Campbell: I take note of what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Ross: Since the line is to go, it is difficult to know what the hon. Gentleman means when he says the Government want to improve the rail facilities in this area. In Scotland we have been flooded with reassurances that we have nothing to worry about because the Secretary of State is looking after it all. In that case, why does not the Secretary of State reply to letters?

Mr. Campbell: The question of passenger services being removed has not arisen because it has not yet been advertised. When it does come up, it will be considered by the Government,

who will take into consideration all the points which have been mentioned from this Box, including the economic needs of the growth area.

Herring Drift Net Fleet

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the size of the Scottish herring drift net fleet in 1946; and what is its size today.

Mr. Stodart: In 1946 there were approximately 444 steam and motor vessels registered in Scotland mainly engaged in drift net fishing for herring. The latest comparable figure is for 1963 when 104 motor vessels were so engaged. However, the number of drifters varies seasonally, and in both years the maximum number of boats engaged in drift net fishing at any one time, and also the number of boats engaged in drift net fishing at some time of the year, would have been greater than the figures I have given.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that these basic figures show a very considerable decline in the basic number of the herring drift net fleet? Will not he take steps to ensure that there is a basic level on which the industry can thrive and prosper, not only for the sake of the fishermen themselves but also for the sake of the inshore based industry which has been built up on these fish?

Mr. Stodart: I agree that there has been a considerable change since 1946 and that drift net fishing in recent years has been on a smaller scale than it was then. One must remember that in 1946 there was a general shortage of protein foods and consequently a very much greater market for the British herring catch than exists today. The number of drifters at work varies. There are now about 870 Scottish dual-purpose boats capable of fishing for either herring or white fish, as the fishermen choose.

Farm Improvement Scheme

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why a tower crop-store receives under the Farm Improvement Scheme a one-third grant which may amount to upwards of £1,000 if


intended for grain storage but only a silo subsidy of £250 if intended to be used for silage and haylage.

Mr. Stodart: The Farm Improvement Scheme covers a wide range of longterm improvements and grants under the scheme are at a uniform rate of one-third of the cost. The Silo Subsidy Scheme is designed to encourage the making of silage especially on small farms. There is a maximum limit to the grant under this scheme and the rate of grant may in practice be more or less than one-third of the cost according to the size of the silo.

Mr. Brewis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he not aware that in general the farmer has to make the choice, and does he not think that this discourages the proper use of grassland?

Mr. Stodart: I would not accept that, because the silo subsidy has worked so well that the silage of grass made this year is up by 200 per cent. since the grant came into operation in 1956.

Mr. W. Hamilton: In view of the fact that it is declared Government policy to ensure that public money goes only to those who can prove their need for it, what steps are taken to apply a means test to farmers to see whether they are really in need of this kind of subsidy?

Mr. Stodart: The answer to that is that no means test is applied to the operation of the subsidy.

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what restrictions are placed on the change of use of a building which has been erected with the help of a farm improvement grant for a specified purpose.

Mr. Stodart: None, Sir. We have to be satisfied that the improvement will fulfil the statutory conditions, but the actual use is for the farmer himself to decide.

Mr. Brewis: Does my hon. Friend mean that if a farmer puts up a building and obtains a grant and then uses it for something else, nothing whatever is done? Does not that make absolute nonsense of getting approval beforehand?

Mr. Stodart: While I would strongly deprecate the behaviour of any farmer if he deliberately and knowingly misstated his intentions about the grant, there is no evidence that this is happening. So swiftly are the systems of farming husbandry changing that it would be most inadvisable to restrict the use of a building to the use for which it was grant-aided.

Irvine

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the local authorities concerned regarding the designation of the Burgh of Irvine and the surrounding districts as a growth area.

Mr. G. Campbell: This is one of the growth areas identified in the White Paper on Central Scotland. The physical possibilities are now being studied in detail with the local authorities to provide the basis for settling what the right administrative framework for development will be.

Mr. Manuel: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the area has been actually surveyed by officials of his Department and whether a development plan has been agreed upon? If so, did his Department agree to the cutting out of all passenger train facilities from the direct south connection point of Kilmarnock, which leaves the new area bereft of any passenger train facilities directly with the South and London? May I further ask him, in connection with the overspill coming into Irvine and the designation of Irvine as a growth point, whether he has agreed to give Ayr County Council additional allowances for capital expenditure for the provision of schools, or has it to meet this from its already cut-down programme, about which there has been so much protest?

Mr. Campbell: As I indicated, the question is still being studied. A technical study is being carried out into all the factors which need to be considered in this matter. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether a survey has been carried out of the whole area, but I can inform him that one of the important matters which still needs to be known is the extent of possible subsidence in the


area. As regards his inquiry about additional allowances for the Ayr County Council, that again would be something to be considered in the future as a result of this study.

Hermitage Academy, Helensburgh

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects work to start on the new Hermitage Academy at Helensburgh.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Provided difficulties over high tender prices can be resolved the work should start within the next month or so.

Mr. Steele: With regard to what the hon. Lady has said about high tender prices, is she aware that the lowest tender which came in was 18s. 3d. per sq. ft. higher than the permissible amount to which the Department has agreed? Does this mean that if the local authority is to ensure savings to get it down to the amount which the Department says it should come down to, Helensburgh, which has waited so long for this school, will get a sub-standard school compared with the accommodation and amenities provided in other schools which have just been built?

Lady Tweedsmuir: No, Sir. We are determined that Hermitage Academy at Helensburgh should be a very fine school. We are at the moment going into consultations to see whether we can get these prices reduced. The standard rate was increased only in January and we might have to go over it a little.

Road Safety Officers

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which authorities employ road safety officers; and how many are employed full time on this work in his Department.

Mr. G. Campbell: Road safety officers, or accident prevention officers are employed by the County Councils of Aberdeen, Caithness, Dunbartonshire, Fife, Lanarkshire and West Lothian; by the Corporations of Edinburgh and Glasgow; and jointly by the Town Councils of Bearsden and Milngavie.
The number of staff employed full time on road traffic work in my right

hon. Friend's Department is five. The work of all these officers includes road safety, but none can be described as being engaged on it full time.

Mr. Steele: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been an increase of only one road safety officer in the local authorities, and that is at West Lothian, since 1962? Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that his Department ought to have some officers employed full time on road safety work, in the same way is the Ministry of Transport has which would encourage the local authorities to do this as well? In view of the fact that road deaths went up by 45 last year and the number of injuries to children went up to 5,603, surely it is time that something more was done?

Mr. Campbell: I know that my right hon. Friend will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said about accidents. I would point out that the main consideration is that road safety should be given proper attention. In many areas this is done efficiently by the police, although no road safety officer as such is appointed. The problems of road safety are closely allied to road traffic and traffic engineering generally and existing arrangements provide for the necessary measure of co-ordination.

Mr. Steele: I have had the same kind of answer for the last six or seven years, but surely when deaths continue to increase and accidents to children continue to increase we ought to have more full-time officers employed on this job.

Mr. Campbell: I cannot add to what I have just said. I certainly recognise the force of what the hon. Gentleman says in trying to reduce these road accidents. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish to study any methods which we can find to do that.

Local Authority Houses (Interest Charges)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total interest charges repayable on completion of the 60-year loan period on a local authority four-apartment house built in 1951 at a cost of £1,644, and a four-apartment house built in 1963 at a cost of £2,508.

Mr. G. Campbell: The arithmetical total of the interest payable yearly over 60 years on a loan of £1,644 at Public Works Loan Board rates in 1951 would be £1,911, and the corresponding figure for a loan of £2,508 in 1963 would be £6,443.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while the cost of building an average four-apartment house in Scotland has increased by only £864—according to the figures given in answer to me by his right hon. Friend last week—a considerable increase of about £4,800 in interest charges arises as a direct result of Government economic policy, and not increased wages for building workers, as his right hon. Friend said last week? Will he, therefore, give an assurance that the Government will see that interest rates are reduced, or that housing subsidies are increased, instead of continually calling on local authorities to ask tenants to pay higher rates in order to meet these interest charges?

Mr. Campbell: My right hon. Friend would not give that assurance. The hon. Member knows Government policy on interest rates very well. Any help given to local authority housing should be provided openly in housing subsidies and should not be concealed by means of an artificially low interest rate. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that under the Public Works Loans Act, 1964, a local authority will be able to obtain a proportion of its long-term borrowing needs at the Government credit rate rather than the full open market rate.

Mr. Gourlay: We are only too well aware of Government policy on interest rates. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in 1963 Scottish local authorities paid no less than £10,500,000 more in interest than they would have paid if the rate had been the same as in 1951 when his party took office? Will he seriously consider whether housing subsidies in Scotland are adequate to meet the high interest rates which local authorities are called upon to pay?

Mr. Campbell: The rate of local authority house building in Scotland is increasing. Construction was begun in 1963 on 25,261 local authority houses in Scotland, which shows a large increase.

Protection of Animals Act, 1911

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek to amend the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, to bring within its ambit modern methods of livestock rearing.

Mr. Stodart: This Act and the corresponding Scottish Act of 1912 are intended to ensure that animals are not ill-used no matter what method of rearing is followed, and my right hon. Friend is not satisfied that any amendment is necessary.

Mr. Hoy: That is a very disappointing Answer. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that thousands of people were horrified by the Press picture of the modern method of pig production in this country and that the revelations in Ruth Harrison's book astonished many people who were not aware of what was happening? While people are not opposed to modern methods of cattle or fowl production, they are appalled by the cruelty which is taking place. Will the hon. Gentleman look at the whole question again?

Mr. Stodart: I know that many people feel grave misgivings on this subject, but I cannot accept the implication that intensive methods of rearing necessarily give rise to suffering. After all, those who adopt these systems must ensure that their animals are able to thrive. I speak with some experience and I assure the hon. Member that if animals thrive, as they do—and I must say that I often wonder how they do, but the fact remains that they do—it is difficult to assert that they are suffering cruelty.

Sir J. Eden: Is there any evidence of cruelty as a result of these intensive rearing methods? In view of the general expression of public anxiety, would it not be advisable to have some form of impartial and authoritative inquiry?

Mr. Stodart: There is no evidence of cruelty. There is ample opportunity for prosecution by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals if cruelty can be proved, but I think that there is no evidence of it. However, I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said about the possible need for an impartial inquiry.

Married Women Teachers

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that there is a shortage of teachers in Scotland and that there are many qualified married women teachers awaiting employment; if he will make a statement explaining this anomaly; and what plans he has to correct it.

Lady Tweedsmuir: My right hon. Friend is not aware that many qualified married women teachers are awaiting employment in Scotland, but I shall be glad to look into any cases of which the hon. and learned Member gives me details.

Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Lady aware that I am surprised by that Answer in view of the correspondence which I have received which indicates that this anomaly exists? Would she look carefully into the matter with a view to making the relevant conditions more practicable, or releasing married women teachers from other duties, or providing nursery classes for children, or providing part-time teaching, or any other way which would solve this anomaly?

Lady Tweedsmuir: Recruitment of married women into full-time teaching went up by 411 last year compared with 1962. But it is sometimes difficult to arrange for part-time teaching, and, of course, there are home difficulties for some of these married women.

Farmers (Rents)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish his estimate of the sums paid by farmers in rent to their landlords.

Mr. Stodart: It is estimated that in 1962–63 £4·5 million was paid in rent by farmers in Scotland to their landlords.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister give us some more recent statistics? Will he think of publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT information about the income of landlords similar to that just issued about the incomes of farmers? Is he aware that many Scottish farmers allege that increases in rent are responsible for increases in milk prices, so that landlords are getting money out of the milk prices?

Mr. Stodart: That goes a little beyond the Question. The hon. Member has spoken of the effect of rent on milk prices, but although rents have increased, they still form only a very small proportion of total farming costs, namely, only 5 per cent.

Mr. Prior: Would not my hon. Friend agree that for every farm which comes up for renting there are at least 100 applicants?

Hill Cattle Subsidy

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers are likely to qualify for hill cattle subsidy, as a result of the introduction of the Winter Keep Scheme, who did not qualify before.

Mr. Stodart: To receive hill cattle subsidy a farmer must keep eligible cattle on eligible land in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Scheme. I cannot estimate the number who will satisfy these conditions for the first time as a result of the review of eligibility that is at present being carried out, but it might be quite a considerable number.

Sir J. Gilmour: When my hon. Friend says "a considerable number", how does that compare with the number who, according to a previous Answer, might lose the hill cattle subsidy under the review?

Mr. Stodart: The great difficulty is that, strange as it may seem, certain farmers who might be entitled to the hill cattle subsidy have not applied for it. These might now start applying and this is what makes it difficult to give an accurate estimate, but I would certainly expect a good deal more than this number of about 50 to qualify in future for the first time.

Drugs

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action the police are taking in Scotland to control the use and circulation of drinamyl and durophet pills, known respectively as purple hearts and black torpedoes.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The police investigate allegations of illegal sales of these


drugs, and cases involving theft, forgery or alteration of prescription forms. The Government have announced their intention to introduce legislation as soon as possible to secure stricter control.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Has my noble Friend read the reports in the Scotsman of 10th March and the Scottish Daily Mail of yesterday about these pills? Is she aware of the deleterious effect of the pills and can she take administrative action to stop their circulation? Further, if any foreign persons are involved in their unlawful procurement and circulation, will she see that such persons are deported promptly?

Lady Tweedsmuir: In answer to that omnibus question, I have not read the articles in question, but my Department has warned doctors about the dangers of prescribing stimulating and tranquillising drugs unless they are fully satisfied that the patient requires them. They have also been reminded to keep the quantities to the minimum. My Department has also invited all local medical committees in Scotland to draw the attention of their colleagues to the dangers involved.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: When is amending legislation to be introduced?

Lady Tweedsmuir: We hope when we are returned after the next election.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

The Highlands

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the fact that industrial development in the central Scottish belt has always tended to attract people from the Highland areas, what compensating industrial projects he proposes for the Highlands of Scotland to help in stabilising or increasing their population.

Mr. G. Campbell: The promotion of a healthy economy in the Highlands, and other parts of Britain that are losing population, is a main aim of the Government's regional development policies. How best to apply these policies to the

Highlands will be settled in the light of the study in which the Scottish Development Group is now engaged. Meanwhile I would remind the hon. Member of the steps taken to enable the pulp mill project at Fort William to go ahead, with an employment potential of 2,500 jobs, direct and indirect, throughout the Highlands.

Mr. Rankin: Is not the Minister aware that, despite all that he has said, over the whole period of his Government's life the population of the Highlands has declined? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that his Government's policies have been too miserable to arrest that decline? Will he remember that when Glasgow was the great growth point there was a steady inflow of Highland people to the City, and that my division of Govan still bears witness to that fact? Will the hon. Gentleman note the words of the Principal of St. Andrews University, that the one great industrial project which the Government can now give the Highlands is a university, and will he emphasise that fact to his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Campbell: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that Central Scotland must have priority as it is the heart of the Scottish economy, but my right hon. Friend is fully aware of the implications of the plan for Central Scotland on other areas, such as the Highlands and the Borders, and that is the reason for the special studies which are taking place for those areas.
The question of a university, which the hon. Gentleman raised, is another one, but I know that Inverness is one of the places which the University Grants Committee is now investigating.

Highland Tourism (Special Grant)

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in the light of his decision not to proceed with the establishment of a Scottish Tourist Fund, he will reconsider his decision with regard to the special grant for Highland tourism.

Mr. G. Campbell: No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend indicated to the hon. Member in reply to a supplementary question on 29th January last, the


special grant was for a specific experimental purpose, which is now practically complete.

Mr. Hoy: But the right hon. Gentleman had proposals to create a tourist fund. He has thrown this overboard, and there is nothing to put in its place. It is in those circumstances that I am asking the hon. Gentleman to ask his right hon. Friend at least to continue to provide this small sum of £15,000 for a further three or four years, which will help considerably in the Highland areas.

Mr. Campbell: As regards a tourist fund, my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider any proposal which is generally acceptable to those engaged in the tourist industry. As regards the grant which is to be continued for only another year, the tourist industry in Scotland already receives assistance from the Government in other ways, for example, the £400,000 which it is estimated is used by the British Travel and Holidays Association on behalf of Scotland. The particular experiments for which the comparatively small sum of £15,000 was intended are now almost at an end.

Housing

Mr. Milan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many slum houses were demolished or closed in Scotland in the year 1963; what is his estimate of the total stock of pre-1880 houses in Scotland; and what percentage the first figure represents of the second.

Mr. G. Campbell: A provisional figure of slum houses demolished or closed in 1963 is 11,400. The best estimate available of the stock of pre-1880 houses is of the order of 500,000. On that basis the percentage is approximately 2¼.

Mr. Milan: As most of the pre-1880 houses are either slums, near-slums, or at least lacking in modern amenities, is it not clear from those figures that the present slum clearance programme is completely inadequate? What are the Government doing to speed it up?

Mr. Campbell: All the pre-1880 houses are not beyond hope. I am not trying to minimise the problem, and my right hon. Friend is giving every

encouragement to the efforts of local authorities to tackle it by closure, demolition, repair, or improvement; but quite a number of the houses are capable of improvement.

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the annual average number of houses built in Scotland in each of the four-year periods, 1952 to 1955, 1956 to 1959, and 1960 to 1953.

Mr. G. Campbell: The figures are 35,854, 30,950, and 27,700 respectively.

Mr. Ross: Do not the Government appreciate that those figures speak for themselves?

Mr. Campbell: No, Sir. The reduction since 1955 has been due largely to the increasing emphasis which local authorities have been placing on redevelopment which is more difficult than building on open sites, which had previously been the case. These difficulties are being overcome. The big increase in housing starts during the past year will result in increases in completion, and there is every prospect of 34,000 new houses in 1964, and more in 1965.

Mr. Ross: In view of the figures which the hon. Gentleman has just given about the number of slum houses in Scotland—500,000 built before 1880—how can he justify or explain away this continued failure and decline of house building in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: I think the hon. Gentleman known that it is because the emphasis has been on development and slum clearance. I might add that the average figure for the comparable period 1948–51, which the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned, was considerably lower at 23,949.

National Health Service Charges

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount collected in National Health Service charges in the financial year 1962–63; what is the estimated amount for 1963–64; and what is the estimated annual cost of collecting.

Mr. Stodart: Excluding charges by local health authorities the totals for


Scotland are, £4,507,330 in 1962–63 and an estimated £4,730,000 in 1963–64. The cost of collection cannot be estimated readily, but it is very small indeed in relation to the sums collected.

Mr. Hamilton: But have the Government any plans to get rid of this iniquitous tax?

Mr. Stodart: No, Sir The scale of the charges helps to contain the total net cost of the National Health Service, thus allowing scope for developing new and improved services which would not otherwise be provided. That, I presume, is what was intended when the first charges were established, some in practice and some in principle, between 1945 and 1950.

Mr. Hamilton: Has the hon. Gentleman read what happened in those years? Is it not the case that not a single penny was collected in charges in any shape or form?

Mr. Stodart: I merely went as far as to say that the principle was then established.

BRITISH ARMY (LIGHT HELICOPTER)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. STRATTON MILLS: To ask the Minister of Aviation if he will now make a statement on the light helicopter requirements for the Army.

Mr. MCMASTER: To ask the Minister of Aviation if he will announce his decision on the light helicopter requirements for the Army; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. POUNDER: To ask the Minister of Aviation if he will now make a statement on the light helicopter requirements for the Army.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Julian Amery): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to answer Questions Nos. 66, 67 and 68.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence told the House in the Defence debate on 26th February that we were

considering tenders for a light helicopter for the Army.
The choice, as he explained, lay between the Hiller 12E, offered by Short Bros. & Harland, and the Bell 47G, offered by Westland Aircraft Ltd.
The Westland tender for the Bell was substantially lower than Short's tender for the Hiller.
Westland's also have more experience in the making of helicopters.
We have accordingly decided to adopt the Bell 47G. The first 50 machines will be bought from the Agusta Company of Italy, who have an established production line. This is so as to meet the Army's most pressing operational needs as quickly as possible.
Orders for a further 100 machines will be placed with Westland Aircraft Ltd. for production in this country.
The requirement for the Royal Marines can be met in a similar way.

Mr. Stratton Mills: How does my right hon. Friend expect Northern Ireland Members to support the Government in view of the social implications of this order? Will he reveal to the House what is the very small differential between the two aircraft?

Mr. Amery: I know that this decision must cause disappointment in Northern Ireland, but the House will recollect that Short Brothers are receiving a grant of up to £10 million to enable the Belfast and Seacat projects to be completed; that they have a share in VC10 work for the Royal Air Force; that they will get a substantial share in the manufacture of the Hawker Siddeley 681, and that the Government have recently announced support for the development and the initial production of a turbo-prop version of the Skyvan.
The light helicopter order could not, in any case, have been a major source of employment, and in all the circumstances we were forced to conclude that the arguments in favour of the Bell helicopter were decisive.

Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although this decision will be very much regretted in Belfast, what is really needed by Short's is substantial design and production work, in


view of the statement by the management that perhaps as many as half the men working in Short's will, in the absence of further orders, be without work in two or three years' time?

Mr. Amery: We are well aware of the problems facing Short's at the moment. I am not sure that the statement put out by the management takes full account of the opportunities which the Hawker Siddeley 681 will bring to Short's, and we are working with them to try to find solutions to their difficulties.

Mr. Pounder: I echo the sentiments of my colleagues about the disappointment that this decision will bring to Belfast. I should like my right hon. Friend to go into more detail. He said that this project would have provided only a small amount of employment. I was under the impression that it would have provided about 500 jobs, which would have been a valuable addition, especially in the light of this week's information from Short and Harlands.

Mr. Amery: Short's own estimate was 120 men, and Westland's estimated 80, so the bracket of employment—and it would vary—would be between 80 and 120.

Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it is that having known for years of the requirement of the Army for a light helicopter, Westland's have not been able to design any, and we now have to accept either the Bell or the Hiller? Is he aware what a terrible problem this will bring to Northern Ireland in terms of employment? Will he say whether he believes that the monopoly given to Westland's is justified by this kind of return?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member's statement that the requirements have been known for years is characteristically inaccurate. It has been endorsed only in the last few months.

Mr. Wigg: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that no one on this side of the House would ever want to compete with him in calculated inaccuracies, but is he aware that this decision will be regretted by the British aircraft industry because, once again, they have had lip-service from the Government who, nevertheless, in their actions have perpetuated a monopoly?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member's question hardly merits an answer. There can be little doubt that the firm which knows about helicopters is the one in the best position to finish the production job on this one.

Sir J. Eden: Is it not a fact that there was a very thorough investigation into the various proposals for this requirement and that an exhaustive competition took place? Is not the key to the whole problem the requirement of the Army, namely, that it should have the best possible aircraft available, and that this is most likely to come from a firm most experienced in the manufacture of helicopters?

Mr. Ross: He did not know about the requirement.

Mr. Amery: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have made an exhaustive inquiry, and indeed have been taken to task for taking so long in making up our minds.

Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question of Short and Harlands in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on Thursday.

AGRICULTURE (ANNUAL REVIEW)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): I will, with permission, make a statement about this year's Annual Agricultural Review.
Before coming to the actual determinations, I would remind the House of the progress made in adapting our support system on the lines I announced on 22nd May last.
For bacon, agreement has been reached with our overseas suppliers for the regulation of supplies on the United Kingdom market.
For cereals, our principal overseas suppliers are, in principle, willing to cooperate in the introduction of minimum import prices. Subject to their final agreement, we will be introducing new guarantee,arrangements this year for


wheat and barley which include standard quantities. The effect of these two steps will be to increase market stability, and to bring under control the present open ends of the cereals subsidy. Details of the new arrangements are given in the White Paper which will now be available in the Vote Office.
For beef and lamb, we were unable to reach agreement with the overseas suppliers for the regulation of supply to the United Kingdom market. In these circumstances, we are not introducing standard quantities at this Review. But we shall be discussing with overseas suppliers the phasing of meat imports, and are making changes this year in the mechanism of the price deficiency system for cattle and sheep which will lead producers to pay greater attention to market forces.
The Government consider that these changes in our support system will contribute to its continuing successful operation in the circumstances of world trade in foodstuffs which exist today. These are very different from those that existed when the system was first devised.
In the Review we found that the forecast for actual farm income for this year just ending was appreciably lower than last, largely on account of the long winter and its after effects in 1963. Adjusted to a normal weather basis, the forecast is for £430 million this year, compared with £438 million last and £420 million the year before. Increased costs for review commodities taken into account at this Review amount to £24 million, of which the recent wage increase forms the major part.
In examining each commodity in turn, we found that, while the situation in some warranted no increase in the guaranteed price, and in one case a reduction, others called for increases.
The most important commodity in this Review has been milk. The House knows that increasing production beyond the needs of the liquid milk market has led to a falling pool price to producers over a number of years. Recently, the production situation has changed. The½d increase given last year did not lead to increased production, and output has actually been lower with the milking herd 3 per cent. down.

In these circumstances, the Government can bring about a much needed improvement in the incomes of milk producers and the guaranteed price will be raised by 2¼d. a gallon. In addition, as already announced, a ¼d. will be added to help finance, for the time being, the Milk Board's schemes for the improvement of compositional quality, and the standard quantity will be raised on the basis of liquid consumption during 1964. In consequence of these changes, the retail price of milk will be raised from 8½d. to 9d. with effect from 5th April.
The flexible guarantee arrangements for pigs have also needed adjustment. The demand for pork is strong and we have our share of the bacon market to supply. In today's circumstances, the middle band, which must reflect the quantities of bacon and pork which the market can absorb at reasonable prices, is too low. We are raising it by 750,000. At the same time, the guaranteed price will be reduced by 6d. a score. The net effect will be an increase in the producer price of ls. 3d. a score.
There are signs that the rate of increase in home production of beef is declining. With the continued strong demand we think the price should be improved to maintain supplies from the home producer. We are raising the guaranteed price by 3s. a cwt. and increasing the calf subsidy for steer calves by 10s.
No change is being made in the guaranteed price of lamb, but the guaranteed price of wool will be raised by 2d. a lb. Although the Hill Sheep Subsidy is outside the Review, the House may like to know that the standard rate of subsidy this year will be 25s. an ewe.
Production of eggs is increasing notably faster than demand and the guaranteed price will be reduced by ld. a dozen.
There will be no change in the guaranteed prices for cereals. There will be an increase of 5s. in the price of potatoes and of 3s. 4d. in the price of sugar beet. The fertilizer subsidy will be reduced by £2 million. The winter keep subsidy will be increased by £1 an acre.
Taken as a whole, this Review increases the value of the guarantees by


about £31 million. of which by far the major part is for milk.

Mr. Peart: Is not it significant that we have had an agreed Review in every General Election year since the Tories took office, and a Review which was agreed in only two years during the last 10 years when there was no General Election? Is not this Review nothing more than a belated attempt to win back lost ground in the rural areas?
Will the Minister comment on the unusual role placed by the Prime Minister, who met representatives of the Scottish National Farmers' Union on 18th February? Has any pressure been put on him?
What about standard quantities? If I may be specific, can the Minister say what are the standard quantities for wheat and barley for 1964–65? Is there any indication in the Government White Paper of the marketing policy of the Government for cereals and meat and what type of marketing machinery will be introduced?
What does the Review really mean in terms of net farm incomes? How does this affect the average farmer? Will the small farmers really benefit, particularly those who farm approximately 50 acres, or will they still be driven out of production, as many have been over the last five years? What about the small milk producers? Will the guarantee encourage them to stay in business? What will be the course of production in the year ahead?

Mr. Soames: This is the fourth Review which I have introduced. Two have been agreed and two disagreed.
As to whether it is a coincidence that this is taking place in an election year, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that in respect of all the commodities we have taken these decisions in the light of all the arguments. The hon. Gentleman will find them set out—I hope most clearly—in the White Paper. If, from the inference that he has drawn, the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government have been over-generous in any particular, let him tell the House.
As I said in my statement, standard quantities are being included in this Review for cereals. The details have been worked out—

Mr. Ross: Are they agreed?

Mr. Soames: —and he will find them in the White Paper. They are agreed by the National Farmers' Unions.
We cannot tell what the effect will be on farm incomes, because this is an increase in the guarantee. It is not an increase in income in the same form as a wage or salary increase would be. We are confident that this should lead to a substantial rise in incomes for the agricultural community. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, and as I have stated, by far the major part is on milk. The fact that we have been able to do this for milk will, we hope, bring about the much-needed improvement in milk production and a more even balance between supply and demand.

Sir A. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend accept our congratulations on a good job done for British agriculture and for the public generally?
Regarding milk, where the most necessary improvement has been made in the producer price——

Mr. Ross: Who pays?

Sir A. Hurd: —so as to ensure that the supply to the consumer is fully maintained, will my right hon. Friend say whether the maximum retail price is to be kept at 9d. a pint right through the year?
At the conclusion of this fourth Price Review for which my right hon. Friend has been responsible, will he say whether he sees the way clear for agriculture to carry forward its productivity still further and gain a better level of income for the mailer and medium-sized farmers as well as the big farmers and those whom they employ?

Mr. Soames: I thank my hon. Friend for the kind remarks. As I said, the price of milk will be raised from 8½d. to 9d. on 5th April. It will remain at that level throughout the year.
The considerable alteration which, over the years, and particularly in this year, we have brought about in our system of support for agriculture will, I am quite convinced, enable the Government, in future Reviews, to take greater account of the level of farm incomes than was possible without these


alterations, and farmers will be able to look forward to increasing production and to supplying the growing market in this country.

Mr. Mackie: Is the Minister aware that milk carries practically no subsidy, or very little, at present? Is he aware that farm subsidies are supposed to keep down prices to the consumer? Would not it have been better to have taken something from the "barley barons" of the South and East rather than directly raising the price of milk? Does not it seem anomalous to raise the price of something, if the whole idea of farm subsidies is to keep down prices, and especially the price of such a vital commodity as milk?

Mr. Soames: The price of milk has been carried for some years by the consumer and not by the taxpayer, except in relation to welfare and school milk.

Sir T. Moore: I welcome generally the statement which has been made by my right hon. Friend and, on the whole, I think that the proposals are fair and reasonable to all concerned. But may I again refer to the question of milk? As my right hon. Friend will know, Ayrshire is one of the biggest milk-producing counties in Great Britain. Is he aware that hon. Members who represent constituencies in Ayrshire, who have farmers among their constituents, and who farm themselves, are confident that an increase of 6d., instead of 2¼d., was what was required, and would have been fair?

Mr. Soames: I am sorry that my hon. Friend should feel that we have not struck the proper balance. Taking everything into account, and not wishing to start up again the sort of difficulties from which the dairy industry suffered in the past years through the production and demand pattern, I believe that we have struck the right balance.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the farmers in Scotland have no faith at all in his statistics, and that one of the leading farmers there has recently said that the Minister is out of touch with reality, and that if the right hon. Gentleman comes to Scotland in the near future he will be in danger of assassination?

Sir Richard Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend be assured that he is very much to be congratulated by the whole agricultural community, particularly on his success in agreeing restrictions of imports of cereals, wheat and barley? Will he pay particular regard to the question of imports of maize, which is so often nowadays used as an alternative to barley? Will my right hon. Friend look at this? While welcoming the increase in the price of milk, which is only just, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will now, in the interests of the milk consumers and of the people who need a regular supply of milk, look at the question of the reserve element in the standard quantity, which has not been increased for many years and which now represents a very much smaller proportion than it did originally?

Mr. Soames: Maize, like other cereals, we have included in our minimum import price arrangements. As to the standard quantity for milk, we have made arrangements, which my hon. Friend will see the details of in the White Paper, altering somewhat the relationship between the standard quantity and that for liquid consumption.

Mr. Thorpe: Without presuming to speak on behalf of the entire agricultural community, but for a substantial minority of it, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in so far as he has concentrated on giving long overdue help to small milk producers, whether he is taking the view of Dr. Johnson, that when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight it concentrates his mind wonderfully——

Mr. Speaker: May I express the wish that the House would have its attention concentrated a little more, because our time is not unlimited?

Mr. Thorpe: May I, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman three short questions? First, on the 2½d. a gallon increase, is it not a fact that this is well below the costs which were prevailing in 1956 and that since that date farm costs have increased? Secondly, while the right hon. Gentleman is hoping to increase production by 750,000, is not the present deficiency in pigs nearer to the 1 million mark than ¾ million?


Thirdly, can the right hon. Gentleman give us a little more further information as to what he has in mind about the phasing of meat imports? Will he, for example, consider tariffs, in preference to the arrangements made for cereals, which were to keep our competitors from artificially raising their prices to this country?

Mr. Soames: The increase in the price of milk is 2¼d. and not 2½d.——

Mr. Thorpe: Yes.

Mr. Soames: —and the ¼d. is for compositional quality for those producing higher quality milk. The guaranteed price is substantially above what it was in 1956. I cannot, of course, tell what the pool price will be. This will depend upon the pattern of production.
I gather from what the hon. Gentleman says that he feels that the rise in the number of pigs should be 1 million instead of 750,000. It is our belief, taking all the factors into account, and the strength of the pork market and the bacon agreement we have made, that, on balance—it cannot be argued exactly, because this is not an exact science—that we have the right figure.
What I said about meat imports was that we have not yet reached agreement with our overseas suppliers as we have done over cereals. There will not, therefore, be controlled imports of meat, in the way there are minimum import prices for cereals, which we are discussing with our overseas suppliers.
We are having a further meeting this week to phase the meat which the exporters are intending to send to this country so that we can have as regular as possible a market price throughout the year, avoiding the deeper dips down which we have had in the past.

Mr. Vane: May I ask my right hon. Friend, about the ¼d. for milk of compositional quality, whether it is sufficient and how far he thinks it can go in achieving the original Milk Marketing Board's proposal that it should be something like 2d. for milk of the highest quality?

Mr. Soames: It is not the only money which can be used for this. The Milk Marketing Board itself will be running

a bonus Pealty scheme. This is a contribution from the Government. It will enable a spread over several pennies as between top quality and lower quality milk. It is our hope—of course, I cannot be specific about this—that the quality should be raised to a sufficient extent to enable a higher quality milk to be marketed.

Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland, tell me whether there was agreement with the Scottish National Farmers' Union on the standard quantities of cereals and in relation to the increase for milk? Scottish farmers asked much more than that. They were hoping to get 4d. Many take the view that the proposals are a calculated decision related to previous Reviews. Will he make it clear to the nation how much is involved in this and who pay for it? Is not the money, the ½d., what every housewife will pay per pint, and the ¼d. for the farmers?
Lastly, will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether or not the proposal in relation to the switch from M.A.P. to winter keep, as made by this settlement, came from the Scottish upland farmers? He said that it was to be an increase of £1 per acre. How is this to be done? I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to be able to answer it, but I did expect that the Secretary of State for Scotland would have been here, because he knows from the administration of this in Scotland that there are three separate classifications, A, B and C, at ranges from 30s. an acre to £4 an acre.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Who is giving the information?

Mr. Ross: Does each classification rise by £1 an acre?

Mr. Soames: I have received a message from Agriculture House that all three Farmers' Unions, for England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, have agreed this Review, and part of this Review is about standard quantities for cereals. Individual unions may have set their sights to obtain an increase for milk or any other commodity. I cannot say. All I can tell the hon. Member is that they have agreed this Review.
As to milk, the hon. Member said this was a calculated decision come to by what happened at previous Reviews. As I think he understands, we were faced with the fact that production was rising far faster than consumption of liquid milk, and so was eroding the average price. There could then be no case for a substantial increase in the guaranteed price. Now, when we are seeing a reduction in the herd, and, last year, production was lower—marginally lower, but lower—as he will see from the figures and the graph in the White Paper, which sets this out very clearly, it is right and proper at this point of time to give a substantial increase.

Mr. Ross: Winter keep?

Mr. Soames: The winter keep grant is paid on an acreage basis used to grow winter feed, and grade, and this £1 increase is per acre for all grades.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the increase in the price of milk will be welcomed by farmers in Ulster, but can he estimate how much this increase will mean to the incomes of small farmers?

Mr. Soames: I could not split it down as between small farmers and big farmers, or make any estimate of what a small farmer is, but it will mean an increase of £24 million throughout the industry as a whole.

Mr. J. Morris: While welcoming this long overdue increased recoupment to the milk producer, and remembering the Prime Minister's words, that the election must be first and paramount in the Government's mind, may I ask how this will affect the consumer? Will it really result in decreased consumption? How does that fit into the need for a long-term policy for the industry? There are now shortages. Will this right the position? Or will the right hon. Gentleman be in the embarrassing position of a surplus again within a few years?

Mr. Soames: With regard to the point about consumers, it means, as I said, a rise in the price of milk from 8½d. to 9d. a pint on 5th April. I myself believe—I should not wonder if the hon. Member did not, too—that the consumer realises perfectly well that the dairy farmer has not had an increase for a long time.

Indeed, the price that he is receiving is lower today than it was five years or 10 years ago, because of the production pattern. I am sure that the consumer will fully appreciate that now that the production pattern is altered it is right that the dairy farmer should get a better return.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Would my right hon. Friend say whether he has had any success in negotiations further to restrict egg imports, particularly liquid egg imports, now that the small eggs have been taken off the domestic market? Also, has he had any discussions with the milk distributors to ensure that half-pint bottles as well as pint bottles are available, particularly to people living on their own?

Mr. Soames: We made considerable adaptations in the guarantee arrangements for eggs at the last Review, including an indicator price, and within this system there is compensation for the producer if the market price should fall as a direct result of imports coming in in excessive quantity at a particular time. Beyond that, no alterations have been made in this Review, but the import of eggs is running at a rate of about 2 to 3 per cent., no more, of the total consumption of eggs in this country.
The question of discussions with the distributors about half-pint bottles as well as pint bottles does not come within the Review.

Miss Herbison: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the £1 extra on every acre for winter keep will help many small upland farmers in Scotland who received help under the M.A.P. grant scheme, but receive no help under the winter keep scheme? If the right hon. Gentleman says that some of them will be helped by the increase in the price of milk, does he not realise that it will not be anything like what they would have received, and what they previously received, under the M.A.P. grant scheme? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that these farmers work very long hours, for seven days a week, and find their income continually reduced under the present Government?
Finally, who will pay the extra money for milk? Is it the housewife? Is it the Government? Who is it?

Mr. Soames: This is an increase in the winter keep grants to those who are drawing the winter keep grants, not to those who are not drawing them. It is an increase which adds up to about £1·6 million. That is the total value of the increase to those who are drawing the winter keep grants.
In the case of the farmer who was drawing the marginal acreage production grant, but is not drawing the winter keep grant, there is not only the increase in the price of milk, but also this year the rise in the price of beef, from which those producing beef will also benefit.
The answer to the question about who pays for the increase in the price of milk is that it is the consumer. The cost is being paid for by a rise in the retail price from 8½d. to 9d. a pint on 5th April. If there had been no increase in this Review, the price would have risen from 8½d. to 9d. towards the end of the next financial year. It will rise at the beginning and remain at that price throughout the financial year.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: We must have regard to other business.

Mr. Harold Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you help the House in this matter? This kind of thing has happened many times since the present Government have been in power. I was unable to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, but there are over 600 other Members of Parliament and, naturally, I could not assume that I should catch your eye.
However, are you aware that the Price Review statement appeared almost word for word in the Sunday Telegraph and also in the Daily Telegraph on Monday? Such treatment of the House of Commons is becoming abominable. The House of Commons itself should have been the first to receive the statement. Time and time again we are being treated in this manner. This is the second time in a fortnight. I ask you to look into it, please, and see whether some way can be evolved to protect the House of Commons against leakages of information on such matters of vital importance to the country.

Mr. Speaker: That does not raise any point of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman's anxieties are between him and the Minister, not between him and the Chair.

Mr. Harold Davies: Surely it is a matter for the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order with me, and he had better let me answer it and not shout at me.
I would assist the House about any impropriety which fell within my responsibility, but this does not. That is the difficulty. That is why it does not raise a point of order for me.

Mr. G. Brown: I well understand that, Mr. Speaker, but it is a difficult situation. The whole of the announcement today was certainly in one of the national newspapers two days ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Point of order."] It was certainly in the Daily Telegraph, and it might have been in other newspapers—the whole of it, and none of it was inaccurate.

Mr. Speaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman assist me? Is he addressing me on a point of order?

Mr. Brown: I am, Mr. Speaker. I say that the Ruling which you have given does not resolve the difficulty for us, and I was wondering whether you would allow me to ask you about the possibility of having an inquiry, or maybe the Leader of the House would help you and us by arranging to have an inquiry, into the way in which the whole of this statement was published in a newspaper two days before the Minister announced it to the House.

Mr. Speaker: The position is that I cannot help the right hon. Gentleman about that. What he has just said will, I have no doubt, have been heard. With due respect to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House, I do not think that we ought to pursue this matter now, for the reason that we shall have much to do and shall, in fact, be very short of time. The mere fact that what has been said has been said will, I have no doubt, result in something being done about it.

Mr. H. Wilson: Would it not save a great deal of time, Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the House got up and announced that he was going to have an inquiry into the matter?

Mr. Speaker: But there is no cue within our rules of order for that to happen. That is why I cannot help the House at this point.

Mr. Ellis Smith: With due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Table Office, and while accepting your Ruling, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he will consult the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, with his usual courtesy, says that he accepts my Ruling. That would mean that he cannot now, within the compass of my Ruling, address a question to the Leader of the House. That is the difficulty.

Mr. Ellis Smith: While accepting that, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: I really think that we must aim at making progress. I noticed the Minister rising to his feet. It may save time if I let him answer something, and I will, but I had best see what it is.

Mr. Soames: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it might help if I were to say how deeply I regret the fact that so much of the information about the Review appeared in the newspapers. I must add that I did not see any accurate report of it. There were quite a number of reports which were nearly accurate, but I did not see any accurate report of the outcome of the Review.
The House will realise that a large number of people are involved in this matter. Because of the way in which the Reviews are carried out, in consultation with the industry, information is spread rather wide. We have had this sort of thing for many years previously, under Governments from both sides of the House. Some of what has been published has been intelligent anticipation. Other pieces of information have looked more like some form of leak.
However, I assure the House that I shall take all steps necessary to ensure that nothing comes out from within my own Department. This is my duty. I would remind the House that even before the Review started I remember seeing a newspaper article which stated that, in the view of the writer, the Review would end up at around plus £30 million. There certainly is a great deal of intelligent speculation.

GAS AND ELECTRICITY (RESALE)

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control the price at which gas and electricity may be resold in houses in multiple occupation and elsewhere; and for purposes connected therewith.
The need for some control of the resale price of gas and electricity has been apparent to many hon. Members on both sides of the House for some time. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Barnett) has raised at Question Time the charges made to permanent caravan dwellers. I have had many complaints from constituents and I have personally examined a number of meters in rooms rented by old people and found the meters set at a point which forced those people to pay very high prices for heating and cooking. Perhaps the House will permit me to explain the system of resale of gas and electricity.
In the type of dwelling I speak of the area supply authority installs one meter only. This is owned by the supply authority and all supplies going to the premises must pass through this meter. The supply authority reads only this meter and renders an account to the owner of the property on the figures deduced from that reading. The owner of the property, however, may have anything up to 20 tenants living in single rooms in his house and in each room he has a meter installed.
This meter is his property and it is referred to in most districts as a check meter. The owner of the property holds the key to this meter and may set it to give only as much gas or electric current as he wishes. Usually, the meter rates are kept very low, so that the owner may be paying only a little over 1d. a unit for electricity to the supply authority although he frequently charges as high as 5d. or 6d. a unit to the tenant.
I have had letters from students who spend 5s. or 6s. every day on electricity, making a weekly fuel bill for one room of anything from 30s. to £2. The owner has bought his power for about 10s per room, so he is making a tax free profit of from £1 to £1 10s. A

bath for these students costs about 3s. or 3s. 6d. The same method is used with gas meters.
Many old people I have visited have to find 30s. or more each week to keep one room at a temperature reasonable for old people, and they generally require more heat than young people. National Assistance Board officers are quite well aware of this problem and do all they can within the rules to try to meet the needs of old people for extra heat.
There are difficulties in arriving at a suitable charge, but I am sure that the House does not want those difficulties to be solved at the expense of the rather more unprotected sections of the community. The gas and electricity boards have very complicated tariff structures. The owner has to buy check meters and also fire and cooking appliances for the rooms. These difficulties I fully appreciate, but they must be overcome if this abuse, which causes severe financial hardship to many people, is to be stopped.
The problem of the tariff structure of the boards can, I believe, be reasonably easily overcome by a provision that each time the boards issue new tariff structures they should include an extra amount for which gas or electricity shall be resold through a check meter. This could be done quite simply by allowing about a 25 per cent. increase on the basic cost of the commodity as it enters the main meter of the house—25 per cent. on the principal low rate charge through the principal meter.
If the owner of the property wanted to do so he could offset this more expensive tariff by an extra charge of 6d. or 9d. per week per room, which would enable him to recoup his outgoings. The same procedure could be used for the purchase, of new equipment for heating and cooking appliances. Why should tenant after tenant continue to pay for appliances, perhaps 10 years after they have been bought? An increase of 10s. a week would amply repay the owner. Then the tenant would at least know where he stood. He might be paying 3s. or 4s. a week more in rent, but he would be saving about 30s. a week which is at present taken from him by stealth.
Responsibility for the proper setting of the meter must be that of the person letting the premises. It must be his job to set the meter at the correct setting. He must give the tenant fair value for money obtained by direct consumers. This is a problem which can be solved and I hope that the House will allow me to introduce my Bill. It would, I believe, provide a fair and reasonable solution.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Carmichael, Mrs. Hart, Mr. Barnett, Mr. Manuel, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mrs. Cullen, Sir M. Galpern, Mr. Emrys Hughes, and Mr. Malcolm MacMillan.

GAS AND ELECTRICITY (RESALE)

Bill to control the price at which gas and electricity may be resold in houses in multiple occupation and elsewhere; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17th April, and to be printed [Bill 113].

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL

Read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the distress caused by the continued shortage of homes, the inadequacy of the slum clearance programme and the steady rise in rents and in the price of land and houses; and deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to take appropriate steps to deal with these evils.
The Motion mentions, first, the continued shortage of homes. That there is such a continued shortage I do not think anyone will dispute. It is now universally admitted that the rate at which we ought to be building houses is at least 400,000 a year. The aim of policy should be to get it to that figure as speedily as possible and keep it there for a long time without prejudice to going beyond that figure if it proves to be possible, or if further evidence comes to light that it is not sufficient, as it may well not be.
In face of that fact and that last year we built not 400,000 dwellings, but just under 300,000, the Amendment which I see the Government intend to move invites us to consider, not a fact but a prospect—the prospect of completing 350,000 new dwellings this year and a more distant prospect of 400,000.
But prospects, hopes and promises must be viewed in the light of the Government's performance over the last 10 years. It is important to notice—and I do not think that this is fully realised in the country—that the number of dwellings completed in Great Britain in 1963 was 20,000 fewer than the number completed 10 years ago, in 1953. If anyone objects that 1963 was an unhappy year with bad weather, he will see that even in 1962 we were 13,000 down on 1953 and that in 1961 we were 24,000 down on 1953.
The year 1953 is significant, because up to that date the Government were still enjoying the advantage of sites acquired, serviced and prepared, of plans made and even of buildings begun by the Labour Party while in power. It is from 1953 onwards—apparently the Minister of Public Building and Works has not thought of that before.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Nor had the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart).

Mr. Stewart: I have made the comparison with 1953 before in the House. It is from that year that our judgment of the present Government's performance must begin. But any analysis of the Government's past performance there has, in fact, been a steady reduction in building since that time.
We are left with an undoubted shortage, and a shortage particularly in council dwellings. In that respect, the figures are even more striking. In 1953, the number of council dwellings completed was 256,000. In 1963, it was 124,000, less than half of that of 10 years ago. Even that figure of 124,000 may give to the public an unduly optimistic figure of the prospect for those who wait for council dwellings. From that 124,000 we deduct those which are only one-bedroom dwellings, mainly for elderly people, and those which are inevitably required to replace buildings demolished. We are left with probably no more than about 10,000 dwellings in Great Britain available for the ordinary families on the councils' waiting lists up and down the country.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): Plus a huge volume of re-lets which should be available from the massive local authority ownership of dwellings.

Mr. Stewart: Of course. Properties become vacant because people die, just as the demand for houses goes up because people keep being born. That is plain enough.
There is an addition of about 10,000 council dwellings a year. In the meantime, private enterprise building is almost entirely for sale. About 5,000 dwellings to let are provided by private

enterprise each year. After seven years of the operation of the Rent Act there is no indication that private enterprise is any more willing to provide accommodation for rent than it was before the Rent Act was passed.
It is in this light that we must look at that part of the Government's proposed Amendment which welcomes the rapid growth of owner-occupation. If one ruthlessly cuts down, by the discouragement of local authority building, the supply of houses to rent, and if the people have to live somewhere, surely there will be an increase in owner-occupation. When the Government, in their Amendment, welcome the rapid growth of owner-occupation, they might as well say that they are welcoming the rapid reduction in the amount of accommodation to let.
This is not the way in which owner-occupation should be handled. Owner-occupation should be encouraged, but we should aim all the time at giving people as free a choice as we can manage whether they shall be owner-occupiers or whether they shall be tenants. To a great extent the increase in owner-occupation in the last ten years has been due to a steady reduction in that freedom of choice. More and more people have said to themselves, "We had better become owner-occupiers because it is the only way of getting a secure roof over our heads." There is little in the Government's record which amounts to the positive encouragement of prudent and willing owner-occupation—certainly not in the prices of houses. Since 1959, over the last five years, the price of houses has gone up by one-third. One may notice that building costs in that period have gone up by 15 per cent., so that evidently there is a considerable interest factor pushing up the price of houses to which I will refer a little later.
Real earnings have not gone up by one-third in the last 10 years, but that has happened to house prices. If we pursue a little further the Government's record on owner-occupation we find that they had a scheme which was publicised at the last General Election for the advancement through the building societies of £100,000 to help people to purchase older houses. That scheme was suspended after it had been in operation for eight months.

Sir K. Joseph: And after £96 million had been spent.

Mr. Stewart: While they are preparing a Resale Prices Bill, the Government might consider some comments in the Financial Times recently about the absence of competition in interest rates in building societies. The Financial Times said:
It is arguable, at least, that greater price competition would help smooth out local variations in the supply of credit and the demand for it and make possible some reduction in the average rate of interest charged. Competition is unlikely to flourish while the seller's market persists unless the Government takes deliberate steps to encourage it.
Perhaps the Government will have something to tell us this afternoon about the deliberate steps which they intend to take, although it seems to me that the weak suit of the Government's Amendment was the failure to enumerate any steps which were to be taken to achieve the objective which they have in mind.
One source of increased competition in the home loans markets would, of course, be to encourage more lending by local authorities. At present, I believe, about one-eighth of all lending on mortgage comes from the local authorities. The Government might have considered deliberately encouraging local authorities to develop a real home loans service rather than keeping the lending of money on mortgage mainly as an adjunct to the borough treasurer's department. Such a home loans service could deal not only with the provision of 100 per cent. mortgages, in which it might be helped by the Government making money available at more favourable rates of interest. Such a service could also keep a register of the properties available for sale in the locality. It could develop a private repairs service.
I mention this because an interesting proposal was made recently in a document which runs as follows:
We have been markedly impressed by the evidence of need for some kind of housing information agency to which young people could go for advice on housing matters generally, including the technicalities of house purchase. Some such housing information centres might well be set up by the Ministry.
This advocacy of increased public enterprise in housing comes from the Birmingham Conservative Association,

although it has not so far received a corresponding echo from the Government.
I have mentioned the undoubted shortage, the inadequacy of the Government's thinking to date, the particular inadequacy of council house building and the effect which that and the lack of measures by the Government has had in increasing the difficulties of the would-be owner-occupier.
I turn now to another aspect of the undoubted shortage. I think that both the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Public Building and Works agreed with me earlier when I said that the shortage is undoubted. What is also true is that on the most optimistic hopes of future building that shortage will persist for some considerable time. It is in face of that fact that we have to consider the problem of rent control. It is because of the continuing shortage that decontrol of rents has meant so many evictions, so much opportunity for petty tyranny by landlords, and such outrageous increases of rent.
However, I know very well that it is no use pleading with this Government to reintroduce rent control where it is needed. I want to go on and ask them what their position is about the extension of rent decontrol. I make no apology for the fact that this is about the sixth time that I have raised this question in the House, because it has never been answered on any of the previous occasions. It is a very important question, because, as the law now stands, no further legislation is needed to decontrol every dwelling in the country. The Minister has only to make an Order and submit it for at most one day's debate in this House—it is an Order under the affirmative Resolution procedure—for every private rented dwelling in the country to be decontrolled.
We are entitled to ask this question: in the unlikely event of the Tories winning the next General Election, do they propose, in the lifetime of the next Parliament, to use that power? This is a perfectly plain question, to which the leading members of the party opposite must already know the answer. There are as many as 2,200,000 families living in dwellings still controlled, rather more


than half the number of families in rented property throughout the whole country. They are waiting with great interest, with painful interest, for a genuine declaration of Government intention on this matter.
We have already had certain general pronouncements of policy. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, speaking at the Conservative Party conference in 1956, said that the aim of the party was to abolish rent control altogether. The Home Secretary, addressing the Tory Party conference in 1960, said this:
We must establish a free market if we are to solve the housing problem.
I confine myself, in fairness to the Government, to pronouncements by those who are still members of the Government. I need not bother the House at present with the wilder pronouncements of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), entertaining as they are.
In view of our continued failure to get answers in the House, it is interesting to notice that the Prime Minister himself was asked this direct question in a television interview a few weeks ago—was it the intention of a Conservative Government, if returned, to make rent decontrol universal, or, indeed, to extend it at all? That was a perfectly fair and reasonable question. The Prime Minister gave a frank and fearless answer. He said that he was opposed to the nationalisation of land. It was like too many of the Prime Minister's answers—swift as an arrow and straight as a corkscrew.
The Minister of Housing himself is a little involved in this. I quote from two recent letters from the Department on this matter. A letter dated 4th April, 1963, said this:
The Government's aim is to restore a free market in housing.
A letter dated 7th November. 1963, said this:
The Government is aware of the need to decontrol all houses but is pledged to take no further steps in this direction in the lifetime of the present Parliament.
It is now legitimate to ask about their intentions in the next Parliament. If we do not get a straight answer in this debate, we shall be entitled to assume that

it is the intention of the Government, if they get the chance, to decontrol every dwelling in the country as soon as they can. The 2 million and more families concerned have every right to have that answer told them before the General Election takes place.
I have spoken of the general shortage. It must be borne in mind that the housing problem is concerned not only with providing new homes to add to the total national stock. There is the parallel problem of the demolition of old homes. Indeed, if it were not for that, the whole problem would be very much more manageable than it is. Here again, the Government's Amendment asks the House to support
the accelerating programmes of slum clearance and modernisation of houses".
The word is "accelerating". The Government have a passion for present participles, for things which are perhaps beginning to happen at the moment.
They have not happened so far. For four or five years now the slum clearance programme has been about 60,000. It was 64,000 last year. There has been nothing so far which could be described as a rapid acceleration. I have no doubt that we shall be told, during the debate, how many are under preparation at the moment. The trouble in these matters is that
Man never is, but always to be, blessed
in the Government's housing policies. There has not yet been that acceleration.
The Prime Minister, intervening in the housing field, told us, again through the medium of television—indeed, I am not sure that it does not appear in some of the Conservative Party advertisements—that the known slums will be cleared in 10 years. The known slums, I presume, means those which were scheduled as such right back in 1955. If they are cleared in ten years, that means no increase on the present rate of clearance. What is the good of saying that in 10 years they will clear the known slums? Every year 150,000 dwellings which are over 100 years' old are added to the category.
Many people who have studied this matter consider that 100 years is too long to regard a: the proper life of a house. At present, we are not clearing slums as fast as the passage of time is creating


new ones. I do not think that the Minister of Housing can dispute that. Indeed, I would say that we are not clearing them at present even half as fast as the passage of time is creating new ones.
This is important, not only for its effect on the slum dweller but for the balance of our whole building programme. Suppose that we step up the rate of building to a little under the 350,000 mentioned in the Amendment. Suppose it becomes about one-third of 1 million each year. If that rate can be continued for five years, we shall have disposed of the problem of doing what is needed to the stock of houses and remedying the actual shortage. Therefore, if we do not have an adequate programme of demolition, the position into which we can get ourselves is that we have geared the building industry up to produce more and we will not be able to produce more. It is a necessary parallel of getting building up to this rate and keeping it there that we should have an adequate programme of demolitions each year. There is nothing in the Government's performances so far to indicate that that is likely to be so.
The Motion begins by referring to the distress that is being caused by the continued shortage of homes and the inadequacy of the Government's slum clearance programme. I need not spend too long labouring that point, because we are all familiar with it.

Mr. Graham Page: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of slum clearance, will he say what target he considers the Government should achieve? Does he consider 70,000 a year to be a substantial target? Would he set a target higher than that?

Mr. Stewart: There is no doubt that if we are to get this problem right we must set our eye on building towards 400,000. At the time when that figure is reached the slum clearance figure should be about 150,000. When one has reached, say, 350,000 on the building side one's rate of demolition should be correspondingly less. What is worrying me is the fact that the Government are making bold estimates of increased total building, but are not balancing that by their performance in demolitions.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman has still not given an estimate of what he would do.

Mr. Stewart: I told the hon. Gentleman what I thought were the right figures.
I was referring to the distress that is caused by these things. The total of homeless persons now cared for by the L.C.C. is 5,000; that is, at the end of February this year. That is the most striking result, but there is a less striking result which is equally heavy in its toll of human unhappiness; people are waiting on housing lists. The number in Liverpool is 40,000 and there is no sign of that number diminishing. In Birmingham, the number is 46,500 this year compared with 45,000 last year. The various lists in London show the figure to be 68,000 now, representing more than 10,000 above last year's figure. In Glasgow, the figure has been steady for some time at 75,000.
This is the measure of the distress and frustration which is being caused by the inadequacies of the Government's programmes. There are also the other distresses caused by the immense bargaining power which the housing shortage puts into landlords' hands and the tyrannies to which citizens can be subjected. I have with me a document containing comments by someone who has had wide experience of rent tribunal work. His comments relate, in the first instance, to furnished dwellings—but, as hon. Members know, they can be paralleled by what happens in unfurnished dwellings as well. He states:
Many tenants are subjected to assault, wrongful eviction and, the most common abuse, the interference with the services of gas and electricity. Refusal to provide rent books is widespread in the London area. It is often necessary for tenants to seek the aid of the police authorities in cases of wrongful eviction, but often with little effect. The police are reluctant to interfere in cases which are normally matters for the civil courts and although tenants are advised in many cases to obtain legal aid, this remedy is infrequently used, not least because of the delay involved.
That is the kind of background against which we must consider the housing problem.
The Motion concludes by deploring the failure of the Government to take appropriate steps to deal with this situation. The Government Amendment


states that their present policy will satisfy the housing needs of the country and also slates, in effect, that their policy will remedy the present difficulties. With this in mind, I turn to the question of the steps that are necessary. Clearly, a part of the problem of resolving the housing shortage depends on what can be done to step up the total output of the building industry. The Minister of Public Building and Works will have noted the rather disconcerting Report from N.E.D.C. on this matter. I understand that he has already expressed the view that N.E.D.C. has been unduly pessimistic. The right hon. Gentleman has sources of information which are not available to other hon. Members. It will, therefore, be important for him to satisfy the House today on the view he has taken.

Mr. Rippon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that we had an important debate yesterday on this very point.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, but having studied the OFFICIAL REPORT of that debate I cannot feel that the Minister has as yet given convincing reasons to satisfy hon. Members that he, rather than N.E.D.C., is right on this matter. However, we all hope that he is right.
It will be apparent from the N.E.D.C. Report—and the Minister will not dispute this—that one will need in the building industry both a marked rise in productivity per person employed and an increase in manpower in the industry. In this connection, we notice that the industry is already to a considerable extent dependent for its manpower on immigrants to this country from the Commonwealth and Ireland. We should always bear in mind this connection between immigrants and the housing problem when we debate this matter. It is one of the curiosities of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act that the man with large private means—the man who will do nothing for the housing problem except buy houses—can come to this country without question while the immigrant who might help us to build houses must clamber over administrative hurdles to get in.
There is another matter on which we need some comment from the Minister of Public Building and Works about the

N.E.D.C. Report. Towards the end of the N.E.D.C. recommendations reference is made to the possibility of there being a short-term regulation to prevent the industry from becoming overloaded—

Mr. Rippon: I do not want to keep on interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that hon. Members are present who cook part in the debate yesterday, and who heard me clearly say that the Government would have nothing whatever to do with physical controls.

Mr. Stewart: If the right hon. Gentleman says that, then what are his views on the paragraph in the N.E.D.C. Report which tells us that greater statistical information is needed before a proper decision on the matter can be made?

Mr. Rippon: I explained in the debate yesterday exactly what I did before the N.E.D.C. Report was issued. That is one of the reasons why I have said that the Report is somewhat out-of-date.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that he is satisfied that there is no need for a regulation of the kind mentioned in the Report, either now or in the future? May I caution him before he commits himself too definitely to that view?

Mr. Rippan: I made the position perfectly clear yesterday. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman has not read what I said.

Mr. Stewart: I have read what the Minister said, but it still does not satisfy me. He has not clearly defined his position as to whether or not some of the measures described by N.E.D.C. may at some time be necessary.
There is another comment in the N.E.D.C. Report which is particularly significant. It is pointed out that one of the reasons why newer methods of building are not adopted on a greater scale is that some systems require substantial capital investment which may not be undertaken unless a large and continuing market can be foreseen. At this point there is a bridge, so to speak, between the technical side of the problem and the administrative and financial side. If we are to get the full benefit of new methods of building there must be a large and continuing market. That


market must come from public demand —that is, local authority demand—and that is affected by Government policy on interest rates and the availability and the price of land.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) put a Question to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury yesterday about the recent rise in the Bank Rate and the consequent effects of that on local authority borrowing. The Economic Secretary replied:
…The immediate effect is not as great as all that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1964; Vol. 691, c. 1174.]
That is true, but what is also true, as is implied in the Report, is that changes of this character in the rate of interest oblige local authorities to look with concern at their future building programmes. It is difficult to reconcile a position of uncertainty for the local authorities over interest rates with the requirement of the large and continued market for housing which is technically necessary if we are to get the output we desire.
We have urged from this side that there should be preferential rates of interest for local authorities, not only for the obvious reason that it brings down the money price of the house but that it puts the local authority in a position where it can plan more confidently for the future, and give to the building industry the kind of orders that are necessary if the technical advantages of new methods of building are to be most fully realised.
The other thing that local authorities have to be concerned about is the price and availability of land. Every time we discuss this problem we find a fresh and interesting piece of evidence available. What I want to put before the House on this occasion is a piece from the Sheffield Telegraph, which my hon. Friends from that part of the country tell me is a very reputable, temperate newspaper; and one that could not be described as taking a sensational view of problems, or as showing either undue favour to the Labour Party or undue ill-will to the Government.
A leading article in that newspaper is headed, "Dubious Honour for Sheffield", and states:
The record price of £90,000 paid yesterday for ten-and-a-half acres of land at Hands-worth makes Sheffield the costliest place in the North for private building development.

If it is any consolation to Sheffield, I think it probable that that city will not remain in sole possession of this trophy for very long, and that this price will be rivalled and exceeded in other parts of the North before long.
After describing the facts, the article comments—and I invite the attention of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to this:
The Minister of Housing by implication abandoned the 'free market' system when, having cried woe on Labour Party proposals for a National Land Commission, he announced effective identical plans himself.
I see that the Minister smiles while his right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works shakes his head.
I should not be surprised if we do not have another statement about land prices before the day is out—I should not be at all surprised at that. I only hope that it will be a little less ambiguous than the last one, which, from the Government's point of view, had the advantage that it could be interpreted to mean almost anything anyone wished. It could be interpreted, as the Minister for Public Building and Works did, to mean no more than that there would be some more new towns, or it could be interpreted—as, in his more expansive moments, the Minister of Housing and Local Government did—as meaning a very considerable programme of public acquisition of land.
The Prime Minister's recent pronouncement indicated that in his view there was no half-way house between something such as we propose and the retention of a free market in land. If the Government are resolute to stick to a free market in land I hope that it will be made clear tonight, and that we shall not be put off with some vague generalities such as the Minister used on a previous occasion.
The one definite statement in the Amendment on this problem—and this is the one definite matter to which I referred earlier—is:
…the Government's policy of increasing … the supply of land "—
then there is a dash, and the words "within regional plans" are inserted in a parenthesis. One can imagine the hurried minute going from the Ministry of Housing to the drafters of the Amendment reminding them that the Government wished to be "with it" and that


the words "regional plans" were much in fashion today.
As a contribution to this problem, the remark that the Government are to increase the supply of land shows that they have not grasped what is in issue at all. I take it that not even this Government are claiming to create land from nothing. The statement means that they will see to it that the planning machinery works so that more land is made available for building. So far, so good. But the Government must be perfectly well aware that they only do that, and can only do that, and will only need to do that, to the extent to which there is an increased demand for building; that this process which the Government call making more land available is, in effect, simply the process under planning legislation of determining where the new building is to go.
In view of that, it does nothing at all to reduce the price of land. In so far as it can be described as increasing the supply, it only does so to meet an inevitable and inescapable demand, and the whole nature of doing what the Government call making land available is one of saying, in effect, "In the next so many years there will be building here, and here and here, but not there, and there and there."
The whole effect of that is simply to decide in whose land the pot of gold is to be hidden. That is the real nature of the process; it does nothing to bring down the price of land or to bring down the price of houses, which rose by that one-third during the last five years. There is nothing here at all to deal with the problem of the price of land.
The Government Amendment speaks of increasing the supply of land within regional plans—but what regional plans? Whose regional plans? We have none at the moment. We have the plans made by the ordinary planning authorities. We have the Government partially recognising that certain regional decisions are necessary—that came out in the debate on the Buchanan Report—but the Government then talk as though the problem could be handled simply by the local authorities.
Is it the Government's intention that they, the central Government, will, in effect, provide the local authorities in

region after region with a general outline of what plans ought to be? I hope that it is—but if that is now the Government's intention it is exactly what the Government objected to when we on this side proposed it during the Buchanan debate. We must, therefore, know what the Government mean when they talk of regional plans. By whom are those plans to be drawn up? What is to be the relationship between the central Government and local government in the making of these regional plans?
When we mention this subject we are bound to remember that tomorrow, if all goes to plan, the regional survey for the South East will be published. I think that the Minister said that some sort of important statement on Government policy would be made almost at the same time as, or even preceding, the publication of the regional survey. The point is that we do not know into how mud detail the regional survey will go, but if it is to indicate what pieces of land in the South-East not now built on are to go into building in the course of the next five to 10 years, and if the Government stick to their view of a free market in land, the regional survey wit be a profiteer's guide.
We have made clear our belief that the increasing value of land, when it is not due to the actual efforts of the landowner but to the needs of the community, should go into the public purse. In view of that statement of policy from our side, it should be made clear that if, as a result of anything that may be either in the survey or inferred from it, people go on buying land at fantastic prices they do so at the peril that they will burn their fingers when the rights of the public are asserted in this matter.

Mr. Dan Jones: I wonder whether the Minister will agree with it.

Mr. Stewart: My feeling is that the Minister will indicate that he is not going to do anything but that somehow or other it will turn out all right. That was the effect of his previous announcement about land. It seems to me, therefore, that when we look at the history of this matter and the housing problem now facing the country and at the terms of the Motion and of the Amendment, with its prospects and promises, we are


bound to say that the Government's performance discredits their promises and their prophecies. The shortage means ever-increasing hardship to our people to which the Government apparently, in the absence of any statement to the contrary, intend to add by the extension of rent decontrol.
The Government's own approach to the problem, as revealed by the terms of the Amendment, shows that they are still not prepared to take any action in the vital fields of interest rates and of land, which is essential to the solution of the problem.

5.7 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
recognises the growing housing demands of a rising and increasingly prosperous population, welcomes the prospect of completing 350,000 new dwellings this year and the Government's further target of 400,000 new dwellings a year supports the accelerating programmes of slum clearance and modernisation of houses, welcomes the rapid growth of owner-occupation and believes that the Government's policy of increasing both the supply of land—within regional plans—and the supply of houses represents the best and quickest way of satisfying the housing needs of the country and of restraining the levels of prices and rents".
I think that the best way to move the Amendment and to answer the speech of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) would be to start off by making a progress report on the various elements of the housing problem and programme, and then to make a few comments on those parts of the hon. Member's speech which I shall not by then have covered and, finally, come to a policy announcement which I have to make before I sit down. In all the figures that I shall use I shall be referring to England and Wales, except when I say expressly that they are on a Great Britain basis.
I very much agree with the hon. Member that the housing task of the country is complicated by the need to tackle three things simultaneously. We have to overtake the remaining shortage, we have to build for growth; and we have to replace obsolescence. We could very easily, I agree with the hon. Member,

by an over-emphasis on one of these three get both our building industry and the housing condition of our people less improved than they should be.
The hon. Member for Fulham, as is his custom, made a selective speech. I shall try not to avoid the bad things while pointing out some of the good things, but, as usual, the hon. Member totally failed to remind the House of one of the most important background facts against which we always discuss housing. The hon. Member quoted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, in, I think, 1956. He quoted my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in, I think, 1960. But, of course, there has been, as we know, an enormous change in the housing background over the last 12 years, caused by the unpredicted acceleration in the rise of the population.
Until 1956 the Registrar-General was predicting a static population until the end of the century, and an ageing population. It is, of course, not his fault that from 1957 onwards the birth rate has rocketed and has gone on rocketing.

Mr. Denis Howell: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the children born since 1956 do not yet want houses.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member perhaps will allow me to develop the argument a little.
In England and Wales, from 1951 to 1963, there was a population increase of 3½ million. This was not mentioned by the hon. Member for Fulham. What is much more significant, and is the answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), is that with prosperity, with younger marriages, with greater survival to old age and with the generally increased capacity to pay for a house if one can find one, the size of households has been steadily falling. Consequently, a static population requires each year a larger number of dwellings and we have not had a static population. We have had a steadily and intensely rapidly rising population.
Between 1951 and 1963, as a result partly of increasing population and partly of this increased rate of household formation, due to the reasons I have given, we have had a net increase


in the households in England and Wales of 1·7 million. In those same years we have added to the stock of houses a net addition in England and Wales of 2·7 million dwellings, after allowing for houses which have merely served to replace houses that have been demolished. Consequently, during the last 12 years about 1 million dwellings have been available to reduce the intensely large shortage that existed when the Tories came to power. I am not, of course, charging hon. Members opposite with total responsibility for that shortage. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] No, I am not charging them with it, because during the war there was a cessation of building. I wish that hon. Members opposite were as fair in their debating.
I should like to give some of the similar figures for the Greater London picture. In Greater London, in 1951, there was a shortage of houses—not a crude statistical shortage but a genuine shortage—of, as far as we can calculate, about 300,000 dwellings. Since 1951, the population of Greater London has fallen by nearly 200,000 and the stock of dwellings has increased by over 300,000. With a declining population and a greatly increased stock of dwellings, that is, of course, a net addition and one would have expected that the shortage of dwellings would have been eliminated; but because of the increased household formation, which has been particularly intense in London, where prosperity has been at its highest, there is still a shortage of about 150,000 dwellings.
To put it in one sentence, because of the habit of marrying younger and the blessing of living longer we have to get accustomed to housing four generations a century, and, I suppose, educating them as well, instead of three generations. The task of changing gear from providing housing at the rate of three generations a century to four generations a century falls on us, and that is why it is not a simple matter to eliminate shortage and still to cope adequately with obsolescence.
After having explained the background, which was absent from the speech of the hon. Member for Fulham, I come to the progress report. We expect, on all the evidence of starts, which

should give us a clear guide, to build in Great Britain at least 350,000 dwellings this year, and of these at least 318,000 should be in England and Wales. Whether we look at dwellings under construction, at starts, or at completions, and whether we look in the public or the private sector, the evidence is of a rapidly accelerating increase on every front in house building.
Next year, too, we shall expect to complete again at least 350,000 and, I hope, substantially more. Suppose that in this year and the next year about 100,000 of these dwellings are needed to rehouse people who have been living in slums which are demolished or in houses which have to be cleared, as some sound houses have to be, to make way for roads, schools, and the like—if we complete at least 350 000 dwellings this year and next, setting aside 200,000 of those for replacement, then by the end of 1965 a further 500,000 new dwellings will have been made available to help towards easing the present shortage and towards meeting the existing growth.

Mr. Albert Evans: The Minister has given us some interesting figures about his hopes for housing targets in the next year or two. Has he any information about the location of these houses? Is there any indication that they will be in the areas where the shortage is greatest? Does he envisage the provision of houses where they are needed, or are his figures overall?

Sir K. Joseph: That question is at the heart of the matter. I know where the houses in the public programme will be next year as well as this year. I know where the private enterprise programme will be this year, because it is represented by starts already made. Obviously, private enterprise, on the whole, does not start dwellings except to meet an expected demand. But, as I shall say later, the essence of the Government's problem is to find the land to enable the public authorities in the greatest need to provide the houses required for their own people. This is the heart of the problem. I shall come to that.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington) rose—

Sir K. Joseph: My speech will be a long one, and I fear that it will become much longer if I am constantly interrupted.

Mr. Lubbock: I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. There is an inconsistency between the figures which he has given and the ones given by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). He said that 150,000 dwellings each year were coming up to the age of 100 years——

Sir K. Joseph: I have not come to that. I shall deal with it later.
I do not usually go back to the 1945–51 period, and, if I do, I am generally interrupted rudely from the benches opposite; but the hon. Member for Fulham allowed himself to go back to 1953, which is very nearly the same principle. He said that in 1953 we had a record year, and he mentioned that we were still building then a very large number of council houses. So we were. But the fact is that the transformation which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) achieved from 1951 to 1953 was to release the private builder, and thereby add a vast number of houses built for owner-occupation to the stock being supplied by local authorities. This is what happened. Hon. Members opposite at that time predicted that it could not possibly happen.
The fact is—I should have thought that the Socialist Party could accept it—that, when the Tory Party came to office in 1951, the top domestic priority was given to housing. Surely, this was right. But, as the years went on, education first and then roads and hospitals qualified for equal priority. It is not possible to give everything priority the whole time. Therefore, we should not be judged on the housing programme over the whole of the 1950s. We should be judged by the combined programme of housing, schools, universities, hospitals, colleges, power stations, waterworks, roads, railway modernisation, and the whole investment of the Government.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: And offices and luxury hotels.

Sir K. Joseph: One day, the hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, learn that in

a prospering and increasingly sophisticated community more and more people find jobs in offices as production is carried out by fewer people helped by more complex machinery backed by an office organisation.
I come now to the main elements in the overall housing figures. Building for owner-occupation is rising extremely rapidly, judged both by starts and by completions. In England and Wales, about 45 per cent. of all dwellings are now owner-occupied. This is getting along pretty fast, particularly when it is borne in mind that, when we came to power, there were only 29 per cent. of dwellings in England and Wales owner-occupied.
It remains true, of course, that there are people who aspire to the ownership of a new house but who cannot manage the deposit. Part I of the Housing Bill, now going through the House, with its release of £300 million to help cost-rent housing societies and co-ownership, will make virtually all the advantages of owner-occupation available to such people at much lower monthly outgoings and for very much lower deposits.
At the same time as building for owner-occupation is rising so fast, local authority programmes are rising too, particularly in the areas where there is the greatest need. At this point, I shall deal at some length with the hon. Gentleman's comments about slum clearance.
In this connection—I know that I do not need to point this out to the hon. Gentleman—it is important to distinguish between slums, on the one hand, and what are called "twilight" houses, on the other. I hope that we all understand what is meant when I use that expression. These are houses which are not found by a doctor to be medically unhealthy as slums but which, not having 15 years' life, do not qualify for improvement grants. They are not medically unhealthy in the view of a doctor. A slum is. That is the distinction between them.
In the country, altogether, there are probably at present about 2¾ million houses which are either slum or twilight. In 1956, when the Government made their inquiries, there were 950,000 houses in Great Britain reported as slums. Since then, 600,000 of those have been


demolished. By that measurement, there should be only 350,000 of the 1956 slums left. But, of course, there has been a constant revision of the total number of slums as doctors have condemned further houses which, in 1956, were not slums—that is, which were not reported as medically unfit to live in. Probably, 250,000 houses have been added to the known slums.
When my party gives a pledge on slums, this relates to the slums which are known to be slums at the moment, which total something over 600,000 in the whole of Great Britain. For these we claim that we are accelerating the programme. The hon. Gentleman is quite right when he says that 64,000 slums were cleared last year, and we do not need to accelerate much, so he says, to get all the slums down in ten years if the total number of known slums now is ony 650,000. The hon. Gentleman knows much better than that.

Mr. M. Stewart: I was quoting the Prime Minister.

Sir K. Joseph: No; I think that the hon. Gentleman was putting a gloss on the Prime Minister's words and was denying that any acceleration is going on. I want to hold him to this. As he should understand—I am sure that he understands it well—the real problem is that so many of these 650,000 which are now left as known slums are concentrated in massive numbers in 38 towns and cities of England and Wales and in some places in Scotland.
It is relatively easy to clear a few hundred slums in a few hundred places, but when there are 80,000, 60,000 and 40,000 slums left, respectively, in Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham, the administrative cost, the task of finding land within the reach of work and the load on the professional and building people concerned, is very great indeed. So the task of the Government is above all, to accelerate slum clearance where slums are most thickly concentrated. This is the problem.
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary concentrated the efforts of the Government in England and Wales on the 38 towns and cities where the slums lie thickest on the ground. These are the places which present us with the greatest problem. I

see the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) in his place. Oldham has one of the largest concentrations in proportion to its total housing stock in the whole country. It is to deal with these 38 towns; and cities that the acceleration is so desperately needed.
I wish now to report progress on where we stand.

Mr. Charles Mapp: To associate the present Home Secretary with any impetus which has taken place in slum clearance in Oldham is a manifest error, either a misjudgment or whatever it may be, on the part of the Minister. The present Home Secretary was the most disappointing Minister of Housing and Local Government that the town council had to deal with in the matter of slum clearance. I must put the record straight on that.

Sir K. Joseph: The time scale of housing means, of course, inevitably that a Minister reaps what his predecessor starts and sows what his successor will reap. I am now reaping in Oldham the initiative started by my right hon. Friend in concentrating the attention of the country on these 28 towns and cities. In these 38 towns and cities the housebuilding programmes have, in aggregate, increased by 75 per cent. over last year and their clearance rates are up by 59 per cent. over their average since the slum-clearance drive started. However, I think that what the House will probably want to know is this.
On the present programmes and achievements of these authorities, all but 12 will have cleared their slums by 1973, but I am making, and the Government are making, special efforts to improve the rate of clearance for the others. The largest problems, of course, are in Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham. I now expect Manchester to deal with its remaining 50,000 slums within 10 years. On present programmes, which we shall accelerate again, Liverpool would 'take 15 years to demolish its nearly 80,000 slums and Birmingham 20 years to clear its 43,000 slums.
We need, therefore, in the case of Liverpool and Birmingham, and in about nine other places as well, to accelerate again ever beyond the programmes at present accepted by the local authorities. But to accelerate further in these cases


means that we must obtain more land and also more output from an already heavily loaded building industry. This means the release of land, and the industrialisation and thus the increased productivity of the building, industry, to which I shall come again later. In the light of those figures, I repeat that it is the pledge of the Government that all slums now known as slums in England and Wales will be virtually cleared by 1973. I cannot say entirely, because, obviously, in those three cities there may be 10,000 or 12,000 slums left out of their large numbers, but all those cities with slums will be transformed by 1973.
Now another subject which is intensely important—the problem of housing for Londoners. I see that there is some dispute as to whether it is practicable to provide 50,000 houses a year for the people of Greater London. I would like to say that this was a figure which in the White Paper introduced a year ago the Government said was the minimum necessary for the needs of London. I see no reason why at least 50,000 houses for Londoners should not be provided by new building and, to some extent, by new conversions, partly in London and partly in other schemes, or by voluntary migration or commuting outside London. Fifty thousand is the minimum that must decently be provided, and I think it is practicable to expect them to be provided.
The House will wish to know, of course, that the Government are also paying the greatest attention to the work which will have to follow the clearance of the slums. When we have the 650,000 slums down the next task will be to clear the twilight houses. A house which is 100 years old is not necessarily, because of its achieving one more birthday, a slum. Many much younger houses become slums and many older houses are a joy to live in. The middle-term task is to clear not only the slums but the twilight houses as well, but the priority must be to clear the slums which are, by hypothesis, medically unhealthy to live in.
The preparation for the surge of twilight area renewal must be an examination of the administrative, financial, legal, technical, transport and moral obligations of pulling down houses without the reason of medical need. As the House will know, there

is a joint urban planning group set up by my Department, the Scottish Development Department and the Ministry of Transport which has as one of its main tasks the preparation of the twilight area replacement campaign. Another of its main tasks is the working out of the implications of the Buchanan Report.
At the moment we are having some pilot studies on the ground. The House will be familiar with the pilot project in Fulham. Another one is going on between a commercial company, Hallmark Securities, and the local authority of Bolton. I would also report to the House, that as an essential preliminary to twilight area replacement and to Buchanan, both the planning and highway grant systems are under examination.
Then there are the 2 to 2½ million houses which are perfectly decent houses but which are without modern amenities. They are being improved at the rate of 120,000 a year voluntarily. Far too few of the tenanted houses are in that figure. As the House well knows, we are introducing an element of compulsion, making the grants a shade more flexible, and we hope to get the rate up to between 150,000 and 200,000 in the immediate future. We can hope in the next 10 years to break the back of the improvement problem as well.
So much for the progress report, but, of course, the Government would like to go faster, and I will discuss what prevents us doing that. I cannot accept—and we are very used to the hon. Member for Fulham's panaceas—that interest rates are a key factor here. There is no evidence to show that interest rates need deter a local authority from building what it decides it needs to build. After all, the present subsidies are at the moment being reviewed, and the idea of the subsidy is to help people who cannot otherwise afford to pay the local authority rent.
I am glad to report that over half the tenants of local authorities are within some sort of rent rebate scheme. Fifty out of 83 county boroughs—much credit to them for most of these county boroughs are Socialist controlled—are now sensibly using the taxpayers' subsidy by way of rent rebate schemes so that the help is channelled to those


most needing it. The subsidy is under review with the idea of meeting the point raised by the hon. Gentleman that the local authorities should have the confidence to plan ahead on the necessary large scale.
I do not believe, on the evidence before me, that cheap money would produce a single extra house. It would increase the demand without increasing the supply, and that is the classic way in which to put up prices very fast.
Nor do I think that land prices are restricting building. [Laughter.] No, I do not. In fact, the building industry is working as hard as it can. House building starts and completions by public and private enterprise are all soaring and there is no evidence to show that the price of land is restricting house building. It often conceals the density allowed in many places. It makes more sense to talk about the price per plot than the price per acre.
I do not believe that the price of land is limiting house building, but I know something that would. The hon. Member for Fulham made a speech today of about 40 minutes length and I shall probably take longer to make mine, but it is the first speech that I have heard from him when he did not spend at least five minutes talking about the famous Land Commission. Here is a splendid scheme for restricting house building. The hon. Gentleman looks impatient, but he should consider what is involved. The enacting of legislation to enable the Land Commission to buy scores of thousands of parcels of land in bits and pieces all over the country, below the market price, would throw the whole business of land supply into chaos and confusion with enormous damage to the housing programme. If the party opposite were returned to power, it would benefit for a year from the large number of starts begun under a Tory Government. But the year after the programme would taper off dramatically.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: Would the Minister elaborate on that fascinating phrase, "the business of land supply"?

Sir K. Joseph: I will substitute "the process of land supply". "Process" would have been a better word to use.

If hon. Members opposite think that land will be brought forward for development under the shadow of their Land Commission, they are being extremely naïve. They will have to winkle out this land and buy it compulsorily and then will have to haggle over the terms of disposal for each of these scores of thousands of parcels of land in bits and pieces all over the country. When one thinks of the bureaucracy, the delay and the increased price of existing houses, because of the failure to build more houses, one realises that this would be a paradise for lawyers and a grave clog on improving the housing of the people of this country.
I was posing the question why we cannot go faster, and I was saying that I did not believe that interest rates or land prices were the limiting factors. I think that hon. Members opposite will agree that the limiting factors are land and labour. The hon. Member for Fulham made great play with what he called the last minute parenthesis in the Amendment. I am afraid that I must annoy the hon. Member for Oldham, East yet again. This was not a last minute parenthesis. The South-East study was initiated by, again, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He, noting the rapid increase in population, and he turn-round of population expectations, initiated the process of regional land use plans, of which the first, for the South-East, will be published tomorrow, with a White Paper. There will follow next year plans for the North-West and West Midlands. I must leave the regional plan details for tomorrow.

Mr. Mapp: Did I understand the Minister to say that we shall have the regional plan for the North-West next year?

Sir K. Joseph: indicated assent.

Mr. Mapp: That is a long way ahead. Surely something must be done to get the plan much earlier.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member should not forget that a great deal is happening in the North-West before the plan is published. Runcorn was confirmed as a new town yesterday. The rate of acceleration in building and slum clearance n the hon. Member's own


constituency reflects great credit on his local authority and its officers and on the Government. Therefore, much is happening, but the plan, which is a complex project to carry out, will probably not be ready until next year. It is under the wing of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade.
I come now to the second limiting factor, labour. As the hon. Member for Fulham rightly said, the building industry is heavily loaded. Large voluntary buying groups are essential if we are to get sizeable orders and industrialised building systems adopted, and forward programmes are the essence of good management on the public building side. I am glad to report that 70 local authorities, accounting for one-third of the total local authority building, are already in local authority consortia, and a large number of the rest of those who account for the major part of the local authority programme, have had the idea of consortia discussed with them and are considering joining or making preparations to join.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Building and Works may have more to say on industrialisation, but I should like to give a necessarily brief progress report. This year 18½ per cent. of the houses in local authority programmes will be built by labour-saving methods of the system type. We must never forget that rationalised traditional building also has a very great deal to offer in increasing productivity. Next year I expect that 30,000 local authority dwellings will be built by labour-saving systems. I expect that from 1965 the number of dwellings built by local authorities by these systems will sharply increase. I hope that within three years as many as 60,000 dwellings will be built by new labour-saving systems.
The interesting stage will be reached when we see whether the success is sufficient to make them applicable to the relatively small numbers of houses normally built by private enterprise builders for sale. It is one thing for local authorities, with many hundreds, or even thousands, to put in orders over a period of five years, and another thing for the small builder building perhaps 20 or 30 houses to use these systems. We

must try to devise systems—some are in existence, including the Ministry's 5M—which lend themselves to use by small builders without a great deal of plant. These are the ways to end the housing shortage.
However fast we go, particularly with the rate of growth of population, we have a problem meanwhile. There are many people desperately waiting for houses and suffering to a greater or lesser extent while we cure the problem. I think that the House will accept that we are on the way to curing one problem. The allegations of intimidation in multi-occupied dwellings are to be dealt with by Part IV of the Housing Bill, now before the House, by way of giving local authorities summary power to enter such dwellings and to put a control order on the dwelling for five years in order to protect the safety, welfare or health of the tenants concerned.
At a Committee meeting upstairs reference was made to the possibility that intimidation may exist outside multi-occupied dwellings. I have no evidence of this. I am not saying that there has not been an allegation concerning an occasional case, but I have no evidence of any large scale trouble of this sort outside multi-occupied dwellings. If hon. Members are aware of trouble of this sort in dwellings occupied by single families, I invite them to send me details. The Milner Holland Committee, which has a very large remit, has this among its subjects for discussion. Therefore, we shall know when it reports——

Mr. Parkin: I am wondering whether the Minister's recollection is complete. Does he recall that it was put to him that intimidation would very often be a serious factor in multi-occupied houses which were not in such a state of disrepair as to require the making of a control order and action by the local authority. That is a very important point. If the right hon. Gentleman feels convinced that the Amendments which he will put down himself or which he will accept from this side during the Report stage of the Bill will meet the situation, I should be grateful if he would say so now.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member is quite right in his recollection. I have no evidence that this is a


problem If hon. Members will send me evidence, I shall be glad to consider it before the Report stage.
I now come to the question of rents and rent control in the period before the housing shortage is ended. I hope that it is common ground on both sides of the House that the situation has changed sharply since 1957. I am not asking hon. Members opposite to change their view about the Rent Act, but I am asking them to accept that since 1957 the pace of younger marriages, the pace of greater survival to old age and the pace of increased household formation have made the pressure in the towns and, particularly, in the big cities very much greater than could have been foreseen from the Registrar General's projections for 1956. This cannot be denied.
Against this background, the Opposition have said formally that if returned to power they would reintroduce indiscriminate and universal rent control.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. A. Lewis: When have we used the word "indiscriminate"? Would the Minister give the quotation? This is the Minister's own word.

Sir K. Joseph: I am interested that it is not the hon. Member for Fulham who leaps to his feet. What the Opposition have said is that they would reintroduce rent control on all dwellings decontrolled by the Rent Act, 1957. Have I incorrectly quoted them?

Mr. M. Stewart: The Minister is quite correct there, but that proceeding cannot by any stretch of language be described as indiscriminate and universal.

Sir K. Joseph: It would simply leave out of control those dwellings which were never controlled even under a Labour Government, which means a universal and indiscriminate reimposition of rent control except over all the dwellings which even the Labour Government thought ought not to be controlled in conditions of far greater shortage than now.
I should point out a few implications of such a policy. Such a policy would be bound to keep people in the cities whether they needed to be there or not. It would encourage decay. It would almost certainly cause a landlord, whenever a vacancy occurred, to sell the dwellings and thus to reduce the amount

of rented accommodation available. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members do not know the facts of life about these things. Before the Rent Act, whenever a vacancy occurred in a rent-controlled dwelling it was almost universally sold, thus reducing the rented stock. Since the Rent Act—and I admit that our evidence is several years out of date, but it is the latest available evidence—80 per cent. of the dwellings which are vacated have remained rented, admittedly at a higher price. They remain in the rented pool. That is the latest evidence, and if the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has any later evidence I hope that he will produce it.
Socialist policy would do far more harm than good. It would be a cure far worse than the disease. But I have been asked some direct questions, and I should like to answer them. Our position is absolutely clear until the end of this Parliament.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The hon. Member says that we do not know the facts of life. Is he not aware that in many cities and towns since the Rent Act has been repealed, when we ask many landlords privately how they are calculating their greatly increased rents, their stock-in-trade answer is that they are charging what the market will bear? That is the sort of chaos which the Minister and the Government have introduced. The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of our announcement that we shall introduce an element of control in order to stabilise the. position and to protect tenants.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member makes my point—that since the Rent Act landlords have continued to rent dwellings even when they have been vacated, whereas previously they always sold them.

Mr. Mendelson: A large number of tenants have been forced to pay up to 45 per cent. of their total incomes in rent because, the calculation which the landlord makes is not based on a reasonable return on the cost but on whatever the market will bear. That has distorted the whole picture of rents.

Sir K. Joseph: I challenge the hon. Member to send me ten such cases. I


shall study them with the greatest interest. But I shall expect the household budget to support his argument. I eagerly look forward to receiving such evidence from him. Why has he not sent it to me before?

Mr. Denis Howell: What about the case which I put?

Sir K. Joseph: I am trying to answer questions put by the Opposition Front Bench. Our pledge runs until the end of this Parliament that we shall not initiate any further measure of block decontrol during the life of this Parliament.

Mr. Lipton: What about after that?

Sir K. Joseph: There are about 2¼ million houses and flats in this country still subject to rent control, of which about 400,000 are in Greater London. The number is steadily decreasing as and when protected tenancies come to an end with the death or the voluntary movement of the tenant. That is the process known as creeping decontrol. The Government do not intend to interfere with this process. It has had a result that when the protected tenancies come to an end, most houses are re-let instead of being sold. If rent control were to be generally reimposed, we should simply be put back into the old position. As soon as the landlord obtained possession he would sell and nobody would have a chance of obtaining a flat or house to rent.
But in the light of the increased pressure on housing in the cities due to increased household formation, younger marriages and greater survival and longer life, the Government do not intend, if returned to power, to propose during the next Parliament any further measure of block decontrol. [Laughter.] The Opposition Front Bench spokesmen never talk about rising populations or household formation, and hon. Members opposite do not seem to understand the very much changed position in the cities due to these factors over the last five or six years. It can, of course, make things worse in the cities—due to increased properity. This is what I am explaining to the House.
There is still the difficult and very troubling problem of the position of some tenants in the areas of worse short-

age, notably in London. Creeping decontrol is not itself the cause of the trouble. The trouble arises from what happens when the houses are re-let. The Opposition would solve this by not having them re-let—in other words, by having them sold, which, of course, solves nothing.
Over a year ago in the White Paper on London we referred to this question of the pressure on tenants of private houses and then announced our intention to set up a committee to report on the state of housing in London and, in particular, whether, given the shortage, rented housing is being used and managed to the best advantage. The committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Milner Holland, Q.C., has been at work for many months, but its report cannot be expected for several months yet. When the report is available the Government will act at once to deal with whatever excessive burdens on tenants it may reveal. The investigation is confined to London, but any action which may be needed will be applied to any other town where there is reason to think that a similar problem exists.
The Government will certainly not simply reimpose rent control, so freezing the market in rented housing and pushing rented housing back into the state of neglect from which the Rent Act has rescued so many, but if the report shows that there ought to be special protection for some tenants the Government will provide for them.
I come to the main plank of the Government's policy as set out in the Amendment. The main need is for more houses, and that means more land and higher productivity from the building industry. It is because of the plans which the Government have made, the regional plans and the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works in encouraging the increased productivity of the building industry, that the Government have been able to give the pledge which we have given. Our pledge is clear. Despite a rising population and an even more rapidly rising demand for houses, by 1973 in England and Wales there will be virtually no more slums. Almost all the improvable houses will have been improved. A good start will have been made on replacing the twilight areas, and there will be no shortage.
I would add that long before 1973 well over half the population will be living in houses which they own. This is our pledge and we see no reason to go back on it in any way.
What is the Opposition's policy? The Opposition's policy is indiscriminate and universal rent control, reproducing all the evils of which I have spoken. The Opposition produced no target for housing until pressed and pressed and pressed from these benches. When they produced a target, it was the 400,000 target which we had adopted six months earlier.

Mr. M. Stewart: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman repeats that. I corrected him previously about it, and he had to withdraw it. I mentioned the need for 400,000 houses a year before the Government mentioned it. If he looks at the record of what is known as the Rachman debate in last July, he will see that he then conceded this point to me.

Sir K. Joseph: I will better the right hon. Gentleman. We need at least 450,000 a year. The point is what target does a party have? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in a long speech in Leeds, part of which I have the honour to represent, discussed housing at great length, but the two things he did not mention were how many houses the Labour Party thought it could build a year and how long it would take for it to abolish the slums. Yet these are the two central factors in housing policy.
Taking the figure of 400,000 a year together with the desire of the hon. Member for Fulham to push local authority building up to 200,000, the implication is that if at any time building for owner-occupation exceeded 200,000 then, despite all the soft words, restrictions would be put on building for owner-occupation. We, on the contrary, are already exceeding 200,000 "starts" for owner-occupation.
The Opposition offer lower interest rates as a bait to owner-occupiers, but in reality there would be no freehold—because leasehold would apply to new building—ground rents would be regularly reviewed and houses would be more expensive because of the activities of the Land Commission and the reduction of building for owner-occupation.

I have already tried to describe what a lawyer's paradise and a clog on housing the Land Commission would be.
Our policies are clear. They are to build, as we are building, more council houses, more houses for owner-occupation and more houses by housing associations for cost-rent and co-ownership. We shall build in the country as a whole at least 350,000 houses this year. We shall then go on to the target of 400,000 a year. The Socialists, who have only reluctantly been forced to accept a target and have not yet a programme, have policies which are either irrelevant, unworkable or perverse.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I do not propose to address the House in the spirit which the right hon. Gentleman has shown. We are discussing the greatest human problem in the country at this time, and it would be very sad if the public began to think that we were doing so in terms of the votes which they will be giving in the election to come. The right hon Gentleman did not approach the problem from the point of view of the human needs of the people but from the point of view of the need of his party to get votes in the election.
This is the greatest social evil in our nation at present. The shortage of houses is destroying the health of our people, their happiness and their character. I do not think that anyone could sit through debates on housing in this Chamber and feel that the Government or Parliament are yet sensed with the urgency of the problem.
If an earthquake took place in any locality the Government and the nation would concentrate on giving all assistance to those rendered homeless. Yet today our people who are homeless or who are without decent homes are as great in number and in their suffering as though an earthquake had occurred. It should be for the Government and Parliament to act with an urgency and a comprehensive vigour which have not yet been shown.
I have said that the housing shortage destroys the health, happiness and character of the people. The right hon. Gentleman spoke at length about slum clearance. I wonder if he is aware that


there are towns where people would even feel it a privilege to have the opportunity to live under slum conditions. They feel that because they are unable to get houses at all.
In my constituency we have largely solved the problem of slums, but what of the overcrowding, the homeless people, the evictions which occur month by month of people whom we cannot rehouse? These constitute the problems which Slough and many other towns have to solve.
I am quite sure that other hon. Members have shared the experience of my "surgery", with women constituents bringing to us doctors' letters saying that it is absolutely essential for the sake of their health and their families that they get new accommodation. Yet, because of the pressure on houses, my council and, I expect, other councils, have to limit the grounds of health to those suffering from tuberculosis—those certified as suffering from dangerous, infectious tuberculosis. In every constituency there are families the members of which are being destroyed in health because of the absence of proper housing accommodation.
It will be the experience of other hon. Members as well that, at the end of three or four hours of meeting our constituents, one is in the depth of despair about what one can do. Women who attend these "surgeries" are in a condition bordering on nervous breakdown. They endure nervous tension day after day because the walls of the houses in which they live are not shrines for human happiness and concord but prisons for the human spirit. The conditions under which they are living are causing more neuroses in the population than any other single factor.
I find that this is particularly so among our young, newly married people. I have told the House before that in my constituency I made inquiries over three months of all the newly married couples. Not one couple was able to obtain a house or a flat in the Borough of Slough. They went into lodgings, into one room, or lived with in-laws. We speak with confidence of the youth of today, but they are beginning married life under conditions which are likely not only to destroy their immediate happiness but which will leave a scar on them for life.
I think the right hon. Gentleman was in cuckoo-land when he was talking about the effects of the Rent Act. Does he know the position of families who, because rent restrictions have been withdrawn, find their rents doubled, trebled and going to the heights which they have to pay in a town like Slough because there is no alternative accommodation? Does he know of the anxiety this means as to how they are to make ends meet for themselves and their families? There has never been a more cruel Act causing greater suffering to the people of this country than the Rent Act, for which the Government have been responsible.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, when he speaks of the little relevance of interest rates, of their effect, not only by increasing rents which the local authorities have to charge their tenants, but on the very owner-occupier of whom he is boasting? I should say that the anxiety which is now in the homes of owner-occupiers is greater than the anxiety in the homes of tenants in municipal houses. They not only have to meet the intolerable interest rates upon their mortgages but have to pay them for houses, which are little more than a cottage, £3,500, £4,000 or £5,000. They have to pay not only their mortgage rates but the increased rates which result from the restrictions which the Government have placed on local authorities in housing. They have h.p. payments to make on their television or refrigerator or washing machine. Sleepless nights are spent by these owner-occupiers, who are the pride of the party opposite, because of the worry that they have in meeting the cost of mortgages and other expenses.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke this afternoon as though he did not know that evictions occurred. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) challenged him upon that point. Has the right hon. Gentleman any understanding of the kind of anxiety which comes to parents when they get notice, when they cannot possibly pay the increased charges which come under the Rent Act, when they have no money to buy houses and there is no alternative accommodation for them to go to? As eviction day comes nearer and nearer the anxiety in that family grows. When eviction takes place, the council has no accommodation


in which to put that family. Children have to be separated from parents—a man in one room, a woman in another; children taken away into the residential schools of the county authorities. The right hon. Gentleman by his Rent Act and by the policy which he has been pursuing has been breaking up families more rapidly than by any other cause.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. Is he aware that in one of these evictions in the last few weeks in London the furniture and the clothing of the evicted family were left out in the garden for a week in the rain because they had nowhere to put them?

Mr. Brockway: I have had similar cases in Slough, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not say that I have not drawn attention to these things, because I have sent to him and to his predecessor cases similar to that.
I am also terribly concerned about the effect upon the young. I would say that a great deal of the juvenile delinquency today is due to the overcrowded conditions in the homes of our families. Young people cannot spend time in their homes because of these crowded conditions. They walk the streets, move into gangs, and juvenile delinquency takes place. The young teen-ager cannot take his girl friend to his home. That is a real problem. It means again that they have to be outside, that there is little opportunity for young people to know the families of their friends, and that this has a quite serious psychological effect.
I think particularly of boys and girls who are studying. A recent report has shown that it is much more difficult for a boy or girl from a working class home to get to a university than it is for a boy or girl from a middleclass home. I believe that is largely because they are unable to pursue their studies in the crowded conditions of their homes. I have a son of 17, and I am amazed at the way young teen-agers have to work at school compared with what I had to do when. I was at school. If that boy had to work in one crowded room, which is the condition of thousands of boys and girls in overcrowded homes, what hope would there be that he would be able to get through his examinations?
I refer to one other outcome of the housing shortage, and that is the racial tension which it causes. I believe that racial tension when it takes place in this country is almost entirely due to the housing problem. One does not find it on the floor of the workshop; but when in towns like Slough we have housing shortage and workers pouring in, because it is a comparatively prosperous city, with no accommodation for them and when those workers see houses occupied by our Commonwealth emigrants, tension begins to grow. If we are to deal with the relationship of races, one of the first things that we must do is to deal with this problem of housing. We cannot begin to think of ourselves as a civilised nation whilst people are denied even the right of a home.
I have taken longer than I intended because of the strength of my feeling, but in the rest of what I have to say I shall try to be concrete and brief. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of priorities. It seems to me that the priorities of our nation are all wrong. We spend £2,000 million a year to defend our homes when thousands of our people do not have homes, or do not have decent homes. We reach up to space with satellites when we do not have enough houses in our own bits of the earth.
The Government's priorities are all wrong in another way. My borough council submitted to the right hon. Gentleman a modest programme of 1,719 houses in six years, fewer than 300 a year. The right hon. Gentleman rejected the proposal, although he promised to look at it again. One of my objects today is to incite him to look at it again urgently and adequately. In his letter to me he said:
… the council's proposals for the next few years, taken together with the greatly increased number of starts approved in 1963 are far ahead of the general rate of increase which will be permissible under the Government's expanded housing programme; so that the council are in effect asking for a considerable measure of preference over other authorities. Apart from this the Minister has to bear in mind that putting extra work on to the building industry without any regard for its capacity can only react to the general disadvantage of the housing programme by producing longer construction periods and higher contract prices.


That means that a request for 300 houses a year in an overcrowded town like Slough is far ahead of the general rate of progress permissible under the Government's expanded housing programme. What nonsense that makes of the Government's claim to be engaged in a great housing campaign!
The right hon. Gentleman referred to extra work on the building industry. I interrupted him this afternoon to speak about offices. He gave me a little lecture and told me that he hoped that I would learn enough economics to know that offices were necessary. Of course they are necessary. I live in Middlesex, about which a report was published only yesterday. It showed that of 12 million sq. ft. of offices, only 3,250,000 sq. ft. were occupied and that of the remainder 2 million sq. ft. were not occupied. Another 2,500,000 sq. ft. was under construction at the end of the year. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the great blocks of offices now going up often have unrented rooms for month after month. The labour of the building industry is put to these tasks while there is the urgent housing shortage of which I have been speaking.

Mr. Lubbock: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the owners or developers of these office blocks could make a contribution towards the solution of the housing problem of the rest of the community by paying rates on office blocks the moment they were completed whether they were occupied or not?

Mr. Brockway: I should be delighted if rates were paid on unoccupied property.
I am very conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak, but I wish to deal with the problem of land. Last week, I asked the right hon. Gentleman the cost of land per dwelling in 1951 and 1963. Rather to my surprise, he said that it was £70 in each year. I looked at my Question and appreciated that I had drafted it badly, because I had permitted the Minister to refer to land bought many years ago when prices were lower. I then asked him what were the prices of sites which were bought in 1963, and I was given astonishing figures for five sites: whereas

the price of land per dwelling in 1951 was £70, the prices on these five sites were £300, £470, £500, £520 and £733. That means that the cost of land per dwelling in Slough has gone up since 1951 between four and ten times. What nonsense it is to say that this has no effect on tenants! Increases in land charges would mean increases in economic rents of between 6s. 10d. and 16s. 4d. a week. If I had time, I could show that the effect of interest rates would be as serious.
The kind of speech which we had from the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon makes some of us despair, because it was not directed to the great human needs of the people who are now homeless and now overcrowded, but obviously was a bait and bribe for the voters in the coming election.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: We all know that on matters such as this the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) speaks with a great deal of first-hand knowledge and passionate sincerity. I want him to know that I for one appreciate the emotions which guide his thoughts, but I thought that he was less than fair to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, for one fact which my right hon. Friend pointed out and which may have escaped the notice of the hon. Member was that in the past ten years there has been a net addition to the housing stock of the Greater London area as a whole. I want to be fair to the hon. Member, but I got the impression that he was saying that in Greater London the situation had not improved but deteriorated.
Facts must speak for themselves. I do not for a moment wish to underestimate the agony which many families have to bear because of the bad housing conditions which still exist in the Greater London area. My "surgery" is filled with such families. It is the job of hon. Members on both sides of the House and whatever party is in power to see that the best possible use is made of all the money which we vote for purposes of this sort and that pressure is brought to bear on Ministers and local authorities. But let us put it in


honest and fair perspective—is the situation in Greater London worse or better than it was ten years ago? The facts are that the situation has improved.
My right hon. Friend must take his fair share of the credit for this improvement. The energy and humanity which he brings to bear in this subject have been paralleled by those who have held this high office before, and he is ably supported by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works who has revolutionised his Ministry since taking office. The old Ministry of Works was something to which one relegated someone who was not of his vast intellectual esteem and calibre. Under his leadership, the new Ministry has become a pioneer in the improvement of methods of building. We cannot lie down under criticisms of the sort which we have had from the hon. Member for Eton and Slough.
I fully appreciate why the hon. Member regards this subject with much more emotion than others, because I recognise that in his and some other constituencies more than others of which I could think there are concentrated the problems of a dynamic and expanding society. In the 1930s, his constituency attracted the industries which became the growth industries of the 1950s. The problem of industrial growth brings with it tremendous social problems. If we had no growth, we would probably not have some of the problems of which the hon. Member has spoken. We would not have the attraction of population, an affluent population with people marrying younger and wanting higher standards for themselves. The hon. Gentleman must admit that Eton and Slough cannot possibly absorb that population increase. With the best will in the world it is not possible for that to happen.
The hon. Gentleman can correct me on this if I am wrong, but I think that the rate at which immigrants from abroad have gone into his constituency has exacerbated the problem. I know that this has been the case in many other constituencies in Greater London, and that is why, despite the scorn that was poured on them by many hon. Gentlemen opposite, many hon. Members on this side of the House were proud to vote for the restriction of

immigrants into this country when the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill was being discussed. I had to endure that scorn, and I was told that my decision was based on colour prejudice. It was not. I made my decision in an attempt to try to bring some better sense and order of priorities into solving the housing problem. Because of our own domestic problems we cannot cope with the burden of housing the overspill of Asia or Africa or the West Indies, and I should have thought that the restriction of immigrants under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act would do as much as anything to prevent the type of explosion to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
I propose to deal with two subjects: first, homelessness and, secondly, rents. I thought that the hon. Gentleman did less than justice to the work that is being done in housing homeless families and to the part played in this problem by the Government and by public authorities. I must declare an interest in this. I am one of the sponsors of the Christian National Appeal for the Homeless in Britain. The money which is raised under this campaign will go to selected societies, trusts, and other organisations working to provide homes, and also to those organisations which are attempting to provide welfare facilities for homeless and badly housed families.
Recently a grant was made to a housing trust in Notting Hill to convert about six houses for homeless families. I believe that the first of the six houses has been opened, and that the rest will be occupied in the spring. The purpose of my raising this matter is not merely to give publicity to what I think is a worthy cause, but to deal with the question which I have often been asked when I have discussed this matter, namely, why should this become a function of voluntary action? Surely this is a problem which should be dealt with by public action, by local authorities, and by the Government? I consider that it is wrong to refuse voluntary help for homeless families. If one carries the argument against the voluntary system a little further, why have a "Meals on Wheels" service? Why have all these voluntary groups which help out in the hospitals? I hope that


no one on either side of the House will suggest that homeless families should not be helped by voluntary action.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Hear, hear.

Mr. Johnson Smith: I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish).

Mr. Mellish: I belong to one.

Mr. Johnson Smith: There is a strong case for supporting voluntary action to house homeless families, because it is possible through this campaign to unlock vast public funds. For example as the campaign points out in its brochure, a grant of £1,000 from its funds will make possible the provision of nearly £10,000 worth of homes with the help of official loans, and so on.
Perhaps I might explain how that could happen. The Minister has asked local authorities to use their powers generously. They have discretionary powers to help housing associations, which, of course, could be set up under this campaign. Local authorities have power to make loans of up to 100 per cent. of the cost of schemes designed to rehouse the homeless. Even if, for reasons of valuation on old properties, a local authority was willing to advance only 90 per cent. of the money mortgage, this would mean that for every £1 put up by the association the local authority would lend £9.
In addition, local authorities can pass on to housing associations the normal Exchequer subsidy on new buildings, and they can also pay grants fox improving or converting existing property, which is what is more likely to happen in these cases. Apart from that, donations can be used on the organisation and management side to secure the creation, or indeed the extension, of sound and well-run housing associations, in which case local authorities would be more willing to make suitable loans.
There are thousands of dwellings in this country which could be converted to house the homeless. The alternative is to put the people into the care of the London County Council. It costs £17 a week to care for a mother and two children at Newington Lodge. In other

words, it is cheaper, and much better, to provide homes for them.
One has to admit that the final solution depends on direct action by the Government and by local authorities, but in the meantime I submit to the House that we as individuals cannot sit idly by and wait for something to be done. There is a legitimate way in which we can supplement the efforts of local authorities and of the Government, and that is by trying to provide houses for these people.
I deal next with rents. My right hon. Friend made an admirable speech, but I was disappointed in one respect. He referred to the Milner Holland Committee. We know that this is an important Committee, and we know that its work has to be done efficiently, but my right hon. Friend said that it may be some months before we can expect to receive its report. I had hoped that the Committee would make an interim report. Are the facts so hard to get that we must wait many months before any action can be taken?
Many people in London feel that the situation here represents a landlord's market. There are many tenants in my constituency, as I am sure there are in others, who cannot pick and choose. The hardest hit are those who are married, and who fall within the income bracket of £10 to £15 a week. Not many of those people can afford to buy a house, nor indeed should they. A family has an element of mobility if it rents property rather than commits itself to home ownership. There is often, too, the problem that if a man wants to purchase a house he has to move far away from the centre of London to find anything that is reasonably priced. Not many of my constituents—the majority of whose incomes are below the national average—are able to move very far from their jobs. The increase in fares alone makes that prohibitive, and very often the nature of their work makes it impracticable.
I agree that in every big city in the world there is a need for different rent levels. If all rents are artificially controlled at ridiculously low prices in London or any other big city it would make that city more attractive than ever, and it would therefore defeat the social purpose of reducing overcrowding.


Many people are sucked in, seeking to take advantage of the amenities offered by a big city, and many more would be likely to come in if the cost of rented accommodation were no more than that of similar accommodation on the outskirts.
To return to a completely free market in London, and to allow the unfettered rule of the law of supply and demand to operate in conditions of severe scarcity, however, can only impose an intolerable rent burden upon tenants. The question, therefore, is: does a landlord's market operate in London today to such an extent that an intolerable burden is being imposed on vast sections of the Population of London, so that injustice flourishes?
My right hon. Friend made an important statement, which will give comfort to many families which enjoy the benefits of rent control. We have been told that they will continue to enjoy that protection after the lifetime of this Parliament. I welcome that announcement, but what about those whose houses are already decontrolled, and those who will be subject to creeping decontrol?

Sir K. Joseph: No one is subject to creeping decontrol; creeping decontrol takes place only when a controlled tenant dies or voluntarily moves.

Mr. Johnson Smith: I did not express myself as felicitously as I might. I accept my right hon. Friend's correction. I will put it another way. The stock of controlled dwellings will gradually diminish and the stock of decontrolled dwellings will therefore increase, and the numbers of people in London who are subject to the forces of the market place will also increase. I am wondering to what extent this will cause an increasing number of Londoners to face an intolerable rent burden.

Mr. A. Evans: Does the hon. Member agree that since 1957 probably half the number of formerly controlled habitations in London have been decontrolled? Certain samples suggest that that is so. On that basis, cannot we assume that most of the remaining controlled properties will be decontrolled in another six years' time?

Mr. Johnson Smith: The hon. Member has the advantage of me. He may be

right. I am not sure. I would prefer not to comment upon it.
I want to switch the attention of the House to Germany. The German Government, too, is involved in a row over rent control. This is bound to happen if people become used to paying artificially low rents. If the cost of everything else rises and rents remain static for some time, but they are subsequently asked to pay a substantial increase to bring the rents up to a more, realistic level, the tenants bellyache. They are not necessarily always right in doing so. A series of surveys has been carried out in Germany, and the Government have come to the rough conclusion that control should be abolished except where there is a scarcity of housing of plus 3 per cent. As soon as there is a shortfall of 3 per cent. the law of the market place operates.
I suppose that the reason behind this decision is that which I gave earlier. There is a feeling that when the scarcity rate is above 3 per cent. the tenant is likely to be placed at a severe disadvantage in bargaining with his landlord, and that no landlord should be placed in such a strong position, because it leads to injustice.
Some years ago, following the passage of the Rent Act, 1957, one could argue that in many instances it would be possible for a family which could not afford a decontrolled rent to move further out, within the south-east region. The South-East Study should tell us the extent to which that is possible today. It should tell us whether housing is more easily available within this region, or whether there is such a big difference in rent.
It is a pity that we are having this debate without the benefit of the results of the study. I imagine that there has been a natural growth of population in the South-East, with a natural growth of households, and that this will continue in the future, so that the shortages in housing will last rather longer than we expected when we passed the Rent Act in 1957. I do not want to prejudge the issue, but if the Study shows that it has become more difficult for Londoners to seek a solution to their housing problems within the region——

Mr. Mellish: Of course it will.

Mr. Johnson Smith: I do not want to prejudge the Study, but if it does it


would seem to strengthen the argument that I have adduced for the provision of protection to tenants in periods of shortage.
I know that the answer is in the long term. My right hon. Friend always says this, and he is right. He has devoted his energies to the problems. The solution is to build more houses—but to do this takes time. If there is only a small degree of scarcity it will not take many years to achieve a solution, but if the Study shows that the problem is worse than we have imagined the patience of many people will be exhausted.

Mr. Mellish: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that he wants more protection for the tenant, and is asking the right hon. Gentleman to do something about what he and I know, from living with it, to be the effect of creeping decontrol? Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Johnson Smith: Yes, but I do not want to spell out anything in detail to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) or anyone else. It could be the case, but I do not want to become involved in detail; my guess about the Study may not be correct, and I do not know what recommendations the Government may make. Not knowing these things, it would be foolish to become bogged down in detail.

Mr. Mellish: I agree that none of us except the Minister knows what will be the conclusions of the Study, but I am sure it will disclose a population problem, in that about 34 per cent. of our population now lives in the South-East. Certain problems must arise as a result. Is it not obvious that the population point will have to receive the greatest emphasis?

Mr. Johnson Smith: Yes. But my right hon. Friend has made the point about the maintenance of restrictions. The question is, where? How widespread will it be? How far along the line is my right hon. Friend going? I am sure that in the light of what I fear might prove to be the problem of the South-East my right hon. Friend will have some imaginative proposals for land development at a rather faster rate than at present. He may have some more concrete proposals to make about

developing towns in this area. He has not shrunk from flying a few kites in this respect in the past. Knowing him to be a man of his word we may hear some interesting recommendations from him.
The extent to which these proposals are bold and imaginative will depend on the attitude to rent control and how far it should go. We shall look with keen interest at his proposals regarding subsidies. In this whole problem one may consider how far we can speed up the release of non-essential land.
May I take up what, in this whole spectrum of things, may appear to be a small constituency point? In my constituency we had from the Transport Commission a cock-eyed plan in relation to railway land. I am glad to say that it was deferred by the borough council, the L.C.C. and the Ministry. But meanwhile we wait and people are becoming impatient. This land goes abegging. Hostels are built to accommodate the university population. This takes up housing sites which might be used for residents and they do not like it.
I visualise hostels for students being built over modernised railway stations, because students do not have families living with them, and that is a place where such hostels might well be built. I can imagine use being made of some of the railway land for office building. I should be glad if office accommodation in the area at present occupied by Government Departments could be released and converted into housing accommodation. Some of the railway land might be used—I do not want all of it—as offices for Government workers. It is such proposals as these that we hope will be considered urgently.
Whatever proposals are suggested, one recognises that their implementation will take time. I was glad to hear, therefore, that in the meantime there is to be no bonfire of controls. There will be no question of that. I particularly wish to emphasise rents, because one hears more about the land problem than about rents. I hope that my right hon. Friend will regard the problem of rents and security of tenure increasingly from a regional viewpoint. There are areas in the country where there is no real housing shortage and no rent problems. If a bonfire were made of rent controls


no suffering would be caused in such areas. One could argue, therefore, that it would be a step in the right direction to have such a bonfire; that it would create an incentive to build for rent, and that I appreciate. But when one looks at these problems, as it has been necessary to do in industry, one can appreciate that what is right as Government policy in one area would not suit another area. We had evidence of that in last year's Budget in respect of the assistance given to the North-East, the depreciation of machinery and special capital grants.
I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the problem of rent control and security of tenure on a regional basis. I am sure that in doing so he will earn the gratitude of many people in London who feel that they have arrived at a position in which, through affluence and increasing population growth, households are put at a disadvantage in respect of the landlord.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I intend to bring evidence to show that out of the suffering of people who live in the back streets of the towns in this country fortunes are being made by property companies, and that the Government are conniving in this. Some people say that the Rent Act has failed. That is untrue. It has succeeded in its main purpose. It has transferred £340 million a year from the pockets of the tenants to those of the landlords. I claim that it is a "landlord's charter" and I hope that this Government will never be forgiven for having introduced it.
Today, under pressure, the Minister promised to introduce no further legislation "for block decontrol"; but the right hon. Gentleman does not need to do that because every year 320,000 families, or their houses, become decontrolled by the tenant moving or dying.

Mr. A. Lewis: The Minister does not need legislation——

Mr. Allaun: That is the point I am making.

Mr. Lewis: —because he can operate by Statutory Instrument.

Mr. Allaun: I agree. But not even a Statutory Instrument is necessary. The new situation is being created by "creeping decontrol". I maintain that it is hoped by Conservative M.P.s that the 1957 Act will be a dead issue by the time of the next General Election and that it be conveniently "swept under the carpet". I must warn the Minister that that will not be so. On the contrary, it is only now that the full effects of the Measure are being felt. The stock of controlled houses has shrunk from 5½ million to 2 million in seven years, which is pretty good going. Let us make no mistake about it, the Rent Act will be a key issue at the municipal elections and at the General Election.
First, let us look at the problem from the point of view of the victim and then from that of the money-makers. I could take the Minister to several houses in my constituency which, up to 1957, were rented at 9s. a week, which indicates the sort of property——

Sir K. Joseph: Inclusive of rates?

Mr. Allaun: Yes.

Sir K. Joseph: What are the rates?

Mr. Allaun: The rates are 4s.

Sir K. Joseph: So the rent is 5s.?

Mr. Allaun: Yes.

Sir K. Joseph: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to speak in terms of net rent and then we shall know where we are?

Mr. Allaun: The rent was 9s. including the rates. These properties are without bath, hot water or an inside lavatory. The type of property will be known to the Minister.
Under the Rent Act the landlord was allowed to increase the rent to 16s., including rates. Yet some houses identical to the ones which I have described, and where there has been a change of tenant, are now rented at £3 10s, a week—a tremendous percentage increase. That is in the provinces.
I have a friend who lives in London. He is a gardener and works for one of the London councils. After working a little overtime, and after National Insurance and other stoppages have been


deducted, he takes home £10 a week. He has a wife and a young baby, so that the wife is unable to go out to work. The total net income for the family is £10 a week. They live in a flat consisting of one bedroom, one living room and a kitchen, and for this they pay £4 10s. a week. I understand that that is not an exceptional amount in London. This leaves the family with £5 10s. a week with which to pay for food, clothing, heating and lighting. I do not know what was the amount of the rent for this flat before the passing of the Rent Act, and I can only estimate, but I guess that it was 30s. It has gone up to £4 10s. a week, making exactly the figure of 45 per cent. of his total income which has been quoted. This happens to be an exact figure——

Sir K. Joseph: Suppose there had never been rent control at all and that rents had risen over the years with earnings. The rent for the 5s. house would, presumably—it having risen with the increase in earnings generally—have increased three or four times since 1939. Will the hon. Member bear in mind the fact—I am not defending any particular landlord—that, for 20 years while rents have been controlled, landlords have had to accept a fixed return while the earnings of the tenants and the cost of repairs and maintenance have moved up?

Mr. Allaun: The answer to the Minister is that these houses were built 100 years ago at a cost of about £40 and they have been paid for over and over again by rents to the landlord.
Let us take a really shocking case, which has been drawn to my attention this week and about which I have written to the Minister. I call it the case of the three widows. These three widows are all old-age pensioners living in the same terraced row in my constituency. All three have lived there for over 30 years. One of the ladies, whom I went to see on Saturday, showed me proudly 44 rent books going back for 44 years.
Last year, a large number of properties in the neighbourhood were bought by a new landlord, whose name is E. Ross (Cars and Caravans) Bolton, Ltd. He sold most of the houses and he pressed these three elderly widows to

buy theirs, but—I do not blame them—because of their age and poverty they said that they did not want to buy. He then sent out a notice saying, first, that the houses were decontrolled, which was completely untrue, and secondly, that the rents would be raised by 17s. 6d. a week, which he could not do by law because, although he could raise them a little, I agree, he could raise them by only a much less sum than 17s. 6d. a week.
I have sent details to the Minister, who, I know, is taking the matter seriously. I hope that action will be taken in a case like this to teach these landlords a lesson. I hope that great publicity will be given to it, because I am sure that this is happening in thousands of cases of which we do not know. I hope that it will be a warning to that kind of landlord.
Unfortunately, that is not an isolated incident. I have sent to the Minister previously details concerning a 70-year-old man who has lived in his house since 1913. By registered letter there came an eviction order. When it was taken up by his Member of Parliament, the firm promptly said that it had made a mistake. In another case—again an elderly person, a widow—the landlord wrote "decontrolled" in her rent book although she is as controlled as is the House of Commons. There must be many more cases of which I and other Members of Parliament do not know. This is going on on a big scale.
In Paddington, my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) has drawn attention to the activities of Rachman and his thugs. They could not get away with that in the back streets of Lancashire, Yorkshire and the Midlands, because in those long rows of terrace houses there is a greater neighbourliness and a greater sense of solidarity. The people would not stomach dogs and strong-arm tactics there.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Like "Coronation Street".

Mr. Allaun: Exactly. Rachman and his thugs would received very short shrift in "Coronation Street".

Mr. Ellis Smith: Turn the fire engine on them.

Mr. Allaun: I suggest, therefore, that the landlords are attempting to do by stealth what Rachman and company did by violence. They have tried to do it mainly on people who, they think, are not well briefed in the intricacies of the Rent Acts and who may be bluffed into doing things which they need not do.
On a previous occasion, the Minister of Housing has told us that the local authorities have a safeguard against that kind of thing. He has said that the local authorities can bung in compulsory purchase orders where this kind of dirty work goes on. I am all in favour of compulsory purchase orders in this and in other cases. Unfortunately, however, there is a snag.
If a local authority takes over the house of a landlord who does this, the value for compensation purposes is fixed by the district rating and valuation officer. He must fix the value in accordance with market value, which, in turn, depends upon rentable value. Thanks to the Rent Act, the rates are high and, therefore, the value of these properties is high. There are many landlords who would say, "Thank God for a compulsory purchase order".

Sir K. Joseph: I am glad to say that the hon. Member is quite wrong in that. When it comes to buying, if a local authority puts a compulsory purchase order on a house because, in the view of the local authority, an exorbitant rent is charged, threatening homelessness to the tenants, the rent which is the basis for the compensation is not the sweated rent. There is room for argument about whether the rent agreed by the district valuer is such as would appeal to the hon. Member, but it certainly is not a sweated rent and does not take into account the sweated number of occupants.

Mr. Allaun: Exactly. The rent fixed by the valuation officer is not the controlled rent. It is the market rent, which is always higher than the controlled rent would have been.

Sir K. Joseph: Certainly. Earnings have risen three or four times since the controlled rent was established.

Mr. Allaun: But the landlord is receiving a higher rent without having done anything towards it himself.
When a Labour Government is elected, it is pledged to repeal the Rent Act, to prevent any further creeping decontrol, to restore security of tenure to those who have lost it and, as for rents of decontrolled houses, it will set up rent tribunals to fix reasonable rents. I hope that the Labour Government will give a clear indication to these rent tribunals that it means sweeping reductions where exorbitant rents have been charged.
I have spoken about the tenants. Now, let us look at the receiving end—the rent receiving end. The fortunes to which I shall briefly refer have been made without the owners raising a finger but simply by sitting back and letting their property values rise. These directors are not disreputable Soho characters. They are the pillars of the Establishment, eminently respectable gentlemen. I could quote names—lords, colonels, one air chief marshal, chairmen of Conservative associations and Conservative Members of Parliament.
Incomes from rents increased from £237 million in 1951 to £579 million in 1962. One company, the Artisans and General, raised its income from £547,000 in 1957, the year of the Rent Act, to no less than £1,313,000 within four years of the Rent Act. In this period, its ordinary dividends went up from £106,000 to £266,000. Let me take another example. London County Freeholds, which includes 9,000 Key flats among its properties, had a rent income which soared from £2,033,000 in 1957 to £3,931,000 in 1962. Its ordinary dividends rose from £219,000 in 1957 to £661,000 in 1962, a threefold increase.

Sir K. Joseph: I ought to put the hon. Member right in case other people are misled by these glib comparisons. If he is talking about rents that were controlled until 1957, the comparison of the income of 1963 or 1962 should be, not with 1957, but with 1939, since when, in many cases, there have not been any increases at all and since when incomes, earnings and pensions have all trebled. It is only fair to draw the comparison over a period of time.

Mr. Allaun: Surely, the Minister is not saying that in a matter of a few years——

Sir K. Joseph: When control was taken off.

Mr. Allaun: —the cost of living has gone up by this percentage.

Sir K. Joseph: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to grasp this. If the rent is controlled for 18 years from 1939 to 1957 and is then allowed to find the market level, there is a sharp increase from 1957, which is due to the fact that it was not allowed to increase gradually from 1939. Rent control was sensible in 1939, but it is unfair for the hon. Gentleman to attribute the entire increase to a few years when it should have been spread but for rent control over an 18-year or 20-year period. I am not defending any particular level of rents. I know the hon. Gentleman appreciates that.

Mr. Allaun: Very well. I can only say that since the three or four years immediately following the Rent Act dividends have continued to rise still more. I will give some quotations to the Minister in a moment to show that they will increase still further in the future, quite regardless of the standard of living or the cost of living. Land Securities increased its rentals from £1¼ million in 1956 to £54¼ million in 1963. I will give the Minister the point that in this case the company also increased its capital, so one would expect some increase in dividends.

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that the company owns any residential property. I think—I am not sure—that it is all commercial property.

Mr. Allaun: According to my information, it includes both commercial and residential property.

Sir K. Joseph: I do not know.

Mr. Allaun: Its dividends on £100 invested in 1950 increased by 600 per cent. by 1960. I will quote two more cases, although I could go on for a long time. The Alliance Property Company followed the Rent Act, 1957, with a 200 per cent. capital bonus in 1959. I think that the Minister will regard this as relevant to what he has just said——

Sir K. Joseph: Residential property?

Mr. Allaun: Yes. The Investor's Chronicle of October, 1963, contained this report:
Rental income is rising steadily as leases fall in.
But the supreme example is undoubtedly City Centre Properties. In 13 years an investment——

Sir K. Joseph: Not residential at all.

Mr. Allaun: Some of it is.

Mr. J. B. Symonds: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, is this debate a discussion across the Floor of the House between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun)? I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Should not questions be addressed through you, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The duty of all hon. Members is to address the Chair. I have not been greatly aware of an abuse of that myself. I take this opportunity of saying that we are not in Committee and perhaps speeches would progress more if there were fewer interventions.

Mr. Allaun: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I think it is possibly due to the fact that the Minister and I were engaged for 27 sittings in Committee that we have got into the habit of interrupting one another. Perhaps I am as guilty of it as anybody else, and for that I apologise.
The Minister says that some of this is commercial property. Some of it is, but the majority is not. I must quote this astonishing case of City Centre Properties, because in 13 years an investment of £10,000 became £2 million, according to Mr. J. H. O. Prosser, who, as the editor of the Investor's Guide, ought to know. Apart from Mr. Cotton, who is a big investor, other big investors are Legal and General Insurance, I.C.I., A.E.I. and Unilever. This is no small fry.
Regarding my last example of a company with sensational dividend increases, Regis Property, the Stock Exchange Gazette of November, 1963, said this:
For example, there are still rents in existence at less than half market price today. In other words, the company still has a goodly sum to come by way of increased rents over the next year or so.


It is obvious that, as flats and houses become decontrolled, rents rise and the dividends of these companies soar.

Sir Herbert Butcher: Would the hon. Gentleman accept from me that what is happening in the case of Regis Property is this? Twenty-one year leases on property in the City of London which was let probably in 1939, 1940 or 1941 are running out, or alternatively leases in respect of office accommodation entered into immediately after the end of the war are now running out. The chairman of the company has said that for a period of years rent controlled tenants have been subsidised by office rents.

Mr. Allaun: I am very pleased to accept the hon. Member's statement. He clearly knows the details of this case and I would not challenge what he says.
Despite its terrible effects, the Rent Act has been backed through thick and thin by the Tory Government. They can rely on their normal safe majority in the House of Commons and on an even safer majority in the House of Lords to win when it comes to a vote. There may be splits on r.p.m., but there are never splits on the Rent Act or property matters, because the defence of the interests of big landlords and big landowners is the main purpose of the existence of the Conservative Party.
No fewer than 53 Conservative Members of Parliament are themselves known to have property interests as directors, managers, etc. I am quoting from Andrew Roth's book, "The Business Interests of M.Ps.", which lists them. This number of 53 is increasing. It compares with 39 only 18 months ago. In addition there are many Members of Parliament whose property interests are not known. Naturally, all of their property values have soared, thanks to the Conservative Rent Act.
One of those who is not listed in Andrew Roth's book, because he was not then a member of the House, is the Prime Minister, who draws large incomes from land and farm rents. His wealth is estimated by Mr. Bernard Harris, City Editor of the Sunday Express, to be such that he is certainly in the millionaire class.
Then there is the Minister of Transport—I informed the right hon. Gentleman that I Intended to mention his name in this debate—who owns 11 companies owning residential flats, with registered addresses at the Minister's home. They are estimated to be worth £200,000.
Next there is the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black). He is the chairman of 34 property companies, plus 16 subsidiary property companies, and is also a director of nine other property companies.

Mr. A. Lewis: That is probably why the hon. Gentleman is not in the House: he is far too busy on that.

Mr. Allaun: I notified the hon. Member for Wimbledon that I intended to mention his name. There is also the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington),who was until recently president of the National Federation of Property Owners.
These are honourable men. I am not saying that they do any dirty tricks. I only say that, because of the Rent Act, the value of their property and the size of their dividends must be increasing year by year. When a serious housing shortage exists, the deliberate removal of rent controls inevitably leads landlords, with a few honourable exceptions, to exploit that shortage. They charge what the market will bear.
I conclude by saying that the solution is, first, to scrap this wicked piece of legislation and, secondly, vastly to increase the stock of houses available to the people.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: It has been with some, but I must admit limited, interest that I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). He has dealt exclusively with the financial problems of the great problem of housing. This has been the theme of several speeches. The purpose of those of us who are interested in this subject is to ensure that more houses are erected. I believe it s accepted on both sides of the House that this is the only method of solving this great problem.
When the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) tried to deal with this


great issue of housing he limited himself to rent control, which the hon. Member for Salford, East has been emphasising, interest rates and land prices. If this is the context of the Opposition's contribution to housing, it is a very sorry theme indeed. We should be turning our attention with more emphasis to the rate of building. Leaving aside the question of land prices and the availability of land, I wish to deal with industrialised housing, because it is in this sector that a substantial contribution can be made.
To meet the rapidly rising demands on the construction and civil engineering industries, the Government's emphasis on industrialised building, particularly for housing, is now receiving greater attention. Indeed, this must be so, because it is estimated that the demand on these two great industries will increase by 50 per cent. in the next 10 years.
From information available in the technical Press and Government sources, it is clear that a large number of firms are engaged on research into new building techniques, the use of new materials and the development of compact service units—the so-called "heart units"—for internal installations. Ways and means must be found of reducing the labour content in the construction industry, the elimination as far as possible of the "wet trades" and the development of techniques which enable work to proceed in all weather; off-site building taking place in factories, where work can continue in fair weather and foul. These industrial methods must be more widely adopted in the building industry, making fuller use of mechanical handling equipment, methods of ensuring that on-site operations are reduced to the minimum and of ensuring fair-faced finishes.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works, in an address to a council meeting of the Association of Municipal Corporations last July, said on this issue:
I have said that industrialised building is not a panacea. But, I do believe that, in the wider sense in which I am trying to apply this concept, it is the key to the problem of increased productivity.
I share that view. The A.M.C. and other local authority associations have

given my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government full support in the efforts being made to direct the attention of housing authorities to the possibilities which industrialised building offer. They have also welcomed the conferences which the Ministry is arranging on an area basis throughout the country.
As a vice-president of the A.M.C., and in my capacity as chairman of the housing committee of the Borough of Bedford, I attended the conference which was called at Oxford on the 25th of last month. The local authorities invited, in addition to the County Boroughs of Northampton and Oxford, included the borough councils of Aylesbury, Banbury, Dunstable, Hemel Hempstead, Luton, St. Alban's and Watford, and among the urban and rural councils were Bletchley and Letchworth. Many of the urban and rural authorities in the area were invited and a substantial number of them were present.
The advantages of industrialised building can be secured only by contracts of substantial sums and continuity of demand for these housing units. The main purpose of the conference to which I have referred was to encourage the formation of a consortium of authorities which would plan their housing programmes and co-ordinate demand, which is a prerequisite to success. This can be achieved initially only by a limited number of the larger authorities. This was clearly recognised by the members and officers representing the small authorities, who brought a sense of realism into the discussions on this topic.
It is appreciated that the smaller authorities have played a vital rôle in the Government's successes in housing in recent years, but I am sure that the local authority representatives at the Oxford conference appreciated that, initially, it is a small, high-powered steering committee of officers and members from the larger authorities which must get the task under way. It was realised that if it became too large it would not be purposeful and would conflict with the various interests represented. I suggest, therefore, that when conferences are called this difficulty is recognised and the invitations for such area meetings are arranged accordingly.
At these regional industrialised housing conferences the interests of the Ministries engaged in these activities should be co-ordinated. At present we have the Ministry of Public Building and Works engaged in research on industrialised housing while the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is more responsible for the implementation of housing schemes. If their activities did not appear so divorced, the local authorities, which are concerned with the initial costs of industrialised housing and maintenance costs over the life period of the house, would be assured on some of the practical advantages to be gained.
In addition to planning considerations, a substantial case must be made for industrialised housing if it is to be got over successfully to local authorities and if they are to overlook the disappointment of the immediate post-war efforts in non-traditional housing. Can local authorities be supplied with details and locations of industrialised building schemes under construction and prototypes which are being developed by enterprising manufacturers? The latter should be given every help with publicity to see that those with successful developments are able to bring them to the attention of housing authorities.
In the main I am limiting my remarks to ground and two-storey dwellings. The multi-storey developments of industrialisation are making good progress, but it is in the bungalow and two-storey dwelling sector that we have a long way to go. Local authorities are finding that the prices for industrialised houses are about 10 to 15 per cent. above the current prices for traditional patterns. This is in addition to the hesitancy to which I have referred, which is bringing a great deal of unwillingness from many local authorities to embark on schemes of this character.
In his reconsideration of housing subsidies will my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government think of some differential subsidy to cope with this price factor? It is hoped that this would only need to be of a transitional character—until methods of production and continuity of work enabled unit costs to be reduced. We all look forward to a cost advantage in industrialised building over a com-

paratively short period once the inertia of the present situation can be overcome.
We have almost overcome the earlier disappointments, and the irritating views of those who do not know whether or not industrialised building will prove to be a success. The staffs at the Ministries engaged on this work are to be congratulated on the progress so far achieved in research and in the presentation of the case to the housing authorities, but there is still need for more and better information and for more realistic procedures.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: The hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) accused this side of the House of eing too interested in the financial and land price side of the problem and not interested enough in the building of houses. He is wrong there, but, whether he likes it or not, he must realise that before starting to build houses one must have the finance and one must find the land. Finance and land price, therefore, are very important aspects of the subject. I agree with the hon. Member that industrialised building is an interesting development, and one that will certainly help the situation.
We are all worried about the housing situation. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) thought that we were unfair in suggesting that things were not improving. We all know that there are more houses and more accommodation available, but I doubt whether the hon. Member's "surgery" is any less or his housing list is any less. Mine certainly is not. In the five years during which I have been a Member of this House the problem has seemed never ending.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) is very lucky to be able to quote only £700 as the highest price for a house site. In the village in which I live, some 20 or 30 miles north of London, I could quote him figures of up to £2,000.
My job is growing food. I used to think that to be the most important job in the world, because we cannot live if we cannot eat, but Lord Boyd Orr, in the early years of his food surveys, found that although people


were being put into good houses in the 'thirties, the rents were so high that the people could not afford food. To those with incomes of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), rent is a very important matter. Since I have represented an industrial borough, I have come to the conclusion that food and housing are of equal importance.
I must take the Minister to task on the subject of the number of houses built in 1953. He said that it was perfectly sensible that the number should be reduced. Does he suggest that because 330,000 houses were built in 1953 there was a case for reducing the number to the present figure of something less than 290,000? Although he spoke of earlier marriage, people living longer and the affluent society, how could he possibly make out a case for reduction and for there being no priorities? The first and foremost priority all along should be for housing, and I quite fail to understand his arguments in favour of reducing the 1953 building figure.
Another point to bear in mind is the size and quality of the houses built since 1953. One of my hobbies is studying houses and planning houses. I have been amazed in the last 10 or 12 years to find how much smaller the houses are, and how few amenities are offered within the house. I do not speak here of the amenities one can later put in, such as washing machines or refrigerators, but the amenities within the house itself.
I recently looked at a private-enterprise house in Harlow. It had one living room and a kitchen, and two bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs. That house was offered at £4,500. Can the Minister give figures of cubic capacity, and not just the number of houses? This is very important, because we also have the problem of housing old people.
When my grandfather died, my grandmother came to live with us. It is a good thing for children and young parents to have the granny living with them. The older person can often act as a baby sitter, and is also a good influence on the children. I often feel that one of the

factors in juvenile delinquency is the lack of a grandparent's influence. The trouble now is that the houses do not have that extra room that is so necessary for accommodating grandparents. In addition, the quality of houses has gone down in the last 10 or 12 years.
The Minister said that the Labour Party's scheme for getting land for housing would be a paradise for lawyers. I am sorry that he is not present at the moment. A few months ago in an Adjournment debate I told the House of a situation in my constituency where land speculators had bought land for £7,500 for which the council would have to pay something in the region of between £200,000 and £240,000. A legal battle has been going on for over two years. About three years ago I mentioned another case in Enfield which involved a seven-year legal battle to get certain land for housing purposes. If the right hon. Gentleman does not think that the present system constitutes a lawyer's paradise, I do not know what is. I do not know of any other system that could be as bad or as expensive as the present one.
The Minister told us what is happening to the twilight houses, and how they are taken over. In a recent housing debate I said that it was a very dangerous for any town to embark on a programme of very limited repairing of odd houses here and there 70, 80, 90 or 100 years old. The Minister chided me for saying that, and said that a lot of these houses were worth repairing. My point was that such repairing made things difficult for a local authority. If I may, I will give details of the type of case I have in mind.
In the Bush Hill area in my constituency a family trust owned between 120 and 130 houses of considerable age. At the beginning of last year the trustees decided to sell, and the houses were offered first to the sitting tenants at prices of £900 and £1,400 each. The tenants had until a date in June to accept the offer. After that, the balance of 81 houses—11 of them uncontrolled and 70 of them controlled—were put on the market.
This area has been looked at by the council for a considerable time as an area which would have to be redeveloped because it contained old houses. The council wanted to buy but it was out-bid by a speculative company


which after buying started to sell the houses. It was not interested in owning the houses as a landlord. It bought the block for £56,000 which represented just over £700 a house. I should like to describe the sort of thing that began to happen after a few months, when it was brought to the notice of the council.
The company started offering first and foremost houses to decontrolled tenants. I should like to quote particulars of four of them. In the first case the tenant took over from his mother-in-law, the previous tenant in 1960. His rent was £1 9s. 3d. The property was offered to him on a 99-year lease, at an annual ground rent of £10 10s., for £1,750. He has since been given notice to quit. Another tenant had been resident since January, 1957, at a rent of £1 18s. 3d. He was asked £1,750 for the house and has now been served with notice to quit. In the next case the tenant is a man aged 79. His rent is £2 3s. 9d. He also was offered the house for £1,720 with a 90 per cent. mortgage. Notice to quit has now been served and has expired. The next case was that of a 63-year old widow. She also has been offered exactly the same conditions.
This is the sort of injustice which the council has to face. Apart from the dreadfulness of the situation, this sort of thing embarrasses the council in its housing programme, because people have to be rehoused when they receive notice to quit. I should like to emphasise the size of the houses—20 ft. by 12 ft. with two up and two down, a cupboard of a kitchen and an outside toilet. The council had to take immediate action because it would have embarrassed its housing programme to rehouse these people out of turn. The council therefore decided to schedule the area for redevelopment. The council, however, did not know of the 40 people who had bought their houses before the sale last June and that about a score of them had repaired their houses. One or two had put in bathrooms and a few were applying to the council for a grant.
Hon. Members will realise from all this the position in the area and the embarrassment caused to these people and the council. The people who had carried out repairs wanted to know their position. In a developing area like this over

a period o 10 years some people had allowed the property to deteriorate until the houses were slums. Other people who by their own efforts were living in nice houses found themselves next door to this deteriorating property.
I visited four or five of these houses. They were occupied by nice young people with young families. They were very worried people. This was a most difficult situation. As far as I can see, the council did the only possible thing which was o schedule the area because, if a great many improvements were carried out at the expense of the tenants and the time came to develop, it would cost the council a tremendous amount of money to take over.
I maintain that this is a problem which can be solved only if the council in an area of this kind is instructed to look at the area and take it over as a whole. It should be possible for the council's surveyor to have a good look at the houses and for the council to repair them and make these people council tenants. The council could then do the job of redevelopment without the enormous expense to which in this instance the council will be put.
Since the council announced that it would redevelop, the speculator has said that he will sell the lot and he has asked a price which would give him a fantastic profit. I think that he is the man who will also collect about £250,000 from the allotments to which I referred earlier. None of this would have happened if there had not been decontrol. This has put all these people and the council on the spot and has cost public money.
The Amendment states that
… the supply of houses represents the best and quickest way of satisfying the housing needs of the country and of restraining the levels of prices and rents.
This company has put some of the houses on the market. It sold the first one for £1,00 about a year ago. The next few were sold a few months later for £1,750. A few were sold later still for £2,400. One of the houses which I visited last Sunday and which was occupied by a young couple had been sold the day before for £2,700, and I was told yesterday that another house has been sold for £3,000. I mentioned earlier the rents which these people


were paying. Some had been paying £4 10s. before all this matter blew up. It is obvious that some people have little faith that the Government's programme will reduce the prices and rents of houses if this sort of thing can happen. I do not think that the Government can measure up to the words of the Amendment when I can quote figures like these.

7.36 p.m.

Sir Herbert Butcher: I owe an apology to the House for not being in my place when the debate opened, and, in particular, to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), but I was engaged in duties in connection with a Committee of the House which meets on the lower terrace level. I also think it right to declare an interest as a director of a building society and as a director of a firm which is engaged in building houses for private enterprise.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the comparisons of prices presented by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie). They cause me to reflect that any owner of property, whoever he may be, whether a landowner on a very wide scale or a family estate of several hundred houses, or the single owner-occupier in almost any part of this country, has had a very substantial unearned increment in the value of the property due to the inflation which has inevitably taken place during the years since the First World War.
Debates on housing always seem to revolve round questions of rent control, rates of interest, and cost of land, and now, perhaps with a certain amount of novelty in it, round the question of industrialised building. I agree with everything that has been said in the debate and in journals on this subject about the desirability of pressing forward with industrialised building, but we are bound to come against the difficulty as we push forward that the larger the orders placed for factory-made houses and components the more monotony is likely to be introduced into the districts.
If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) was saying, local authorities are going to unite to place large orders for similar houses covering a certain number of towns, there is a substantial obligation

on the town planning authorities and those responsible for landscaping and design to ensure that there is a maximum variety of finish and outlook. In this connection, it is most desirable that as many trees as possible should be retained and that a deliberate attempt should be made, for instance, by setting some houses further back from the road and by the application of good scenic landscaping, to introduce variety into these building areas.
I turn now to the question of rent control, which seems to worry hon. Members opposite——

Mr. A. Lewis: And our constituents.

Sir H. Butcher: —and their constituents, but, may I say, only some of their constituents. Rent control is no worry to a man purchasing his own house or to a council tenant. The fact remains that to control the rent of property is fundamentally the wrong approach if we wish to ensure that proper housing is provided for our people. We ought to have the courage to allow houses to find their natural level of rents, by the law of supply and demand, but come to the assistance of the poorer and less fortunate members of the community by subsidising the people rather than subsidising or artificially distorting the rents payable for property.
I have noted with interest, but not altogether with approval, the fact that there is to be no alteration in rent control and that the present arrangements are to be continued. I cannot help feeling that there is some obligation on tenants to make a contribution towards easing the housing shortage. I suggest the tenant should be expected, if he is to enjoy the benefit of continued rent control, to release living accommodation which is not fully and properly occupied within the house or apartment which he has. I believe, also, that the continuance of rent control will slow down the development of the inner areas of the suburbs of our great cities where it is essential that development should take place since those are the places where homes can be nearer to workplaces and where travel and shopping facilities exist. Therefore, although I accept that, after having surveyed the problem as a whole, the Minister proposes to take no action to speed up


rent decontrol, I hope that this will not retard the development of the new houses which we want.
I do not consider that there is very much to be said on the question of interest rates. For every borrower there must always be a lender. In a fair and free market, the laws of supply and demand come in, but if they do not operate there is a hidden subsidy somewhere to somebody.

Mr. Mackie: The hon. Gentleman sits for an agricultural constituency. Would he apply the same principle to agriculture, that we should not create an artificial situation by subsidising agriculture?

Sir H. Butcher: I am dealing at this moment with the question of loans. In my view, agriculture is an entirely different subject. I should be most happy to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman on an occasion when the House has before it some question dealing with agriculture.

Mr. Mackie: But it is the principle of the thing. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that for nothing in this country, neither housing nor anything else, should there be a subsidy or an artificial situation created. Does that apply to agriculture?

Sir H. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman is not going to push me quite as far as that. What I said was that if a subsidy is paid to someone there is someone else paying it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If the hon. Gentleman insists on making an intervention about agriculture, I will say that it is right that people in the towns should pay a subsidy to the people in the country; but if I go on like this I shall soon incur the displeasure of the Chair.
We must accept that if someone receives a subsidy other people are called upon to pay it. However right this may be in agriculture, it is entirely wrong in housing, when everybody is entitled——

Mr. A. Lewis: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that at this moment the taxpayer is subsidising the private landlord to the tune of thousands of pounds a week? There are many people today, some of them in my constituency, who, because their rents have been doubled or trebled and they have no other

income, have to go to the National Assistance Board for help. From the National Assistance Board they draw the money and then pay it straight over to the landlords. This is a direct subsidy to the landlords paid by the taxpayer and those who contribute to the National Insurance Fund.

Sir H. Butcher: It is entirely right and proper that people who go for National Assistance should be put in such a position that they can pay a contribution towards the cost of their housing whether in terms of instalments to a building society, rent to a local council, or rent to a private landlord.

Mr. A. Lewis: That is no answer to my question.

Sir H. Butcher: I come now to what was said by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), who spoke about an enormous increase in rents. He referred to one case, of which I have knowledge, the property concerned being almost entirely commercial. The hon. Gentleman must realise that, so far as those substantial sums of money have been received and distributed, Income Tax and Surtax have been applied to them. So far as they were not subject to Income Tax and Surtax, they passed into the hands of charitable bodies and had a beneficial influence as a result.
The other subject which we always discuss in our housing debates is the price of land. There is no more difficult subject to think about than the price of land, nor is there anything more fascinating to examine. The cost of housing is built up of three elements, the cost of the land, the cost of the building and the value which the purchaser sets on the his desire to buy the property. I take, first, the cost of land. Not only is there the question of the difficulty of ease of developing the site; there is also the desirability of the land in the eyes of the person who wishes to live there. This is why people are prepared to pay a great deal more to live in some places rather than in others. In the area spoken of by the hon. Member for Enfield, East a few minutes ago, there are no pieces of land priced at anything like the £00 mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough


(Mr. Brockway). However, in the Greater London area, I should regard £700 as an extremely low figure for housing at the present time.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: For each house?

Sir H. Butcher: For the plot—for each house or, to adopt the phrase which is used, for planning permission for an accommodation unit. Land used to be valued at a price per acre and then at so many £s per foot frontage. Now, however, it can safely be valued on the basis of planning for so many dwellings to the acre, planning permission having been given for so many units, the number of units being used as the multiplier to give the price. That is the figure for the land on which the houses will stand, and it is a figure which the land will fetch as its market value.
We have reached an extraordinary situation. The price of land varies enormously—£700, £1,000, £2,000 and more for houses near our great cities. Around Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester and similar places, these high and, in my view, undesirable prices for plots of land are readily paid, and the level will probably increase in the future. One can secure admirable and attractive plots of land in some of the smaller towns of Yorkshire for less than £200 a plot. That is true of places in the West Riding. In recent years I have known similar prices to be paid for land admirable for development in Devonshire. One cannot artificially restrict demand.
Why do people pay these strange figures? What makes up the price of housing? The answer is, the cost of the land and the cost of the house that one puts on it and people's odd ideals. People will pay more for the privilege of putting "London, S.W.1" on their notepaper than they will to put "London, S.E.1". If we move further up the river, people are prepared to pay much more for putting "S.W.3" on their notepaper than they are for putting "S.E.9". Do not ask me why, but some people are prepared to pay enormous prices for mews property in Belgravia but turn up their nose at a decent semi-detached house in Tooting. I do not understand it, but in a free country people must be allowed to spend their money how they like.

Mr. Mellish: What the hon. Member says about the desirability of certain districts may be true, but I am sure he will agree that it applies to a very small minority in London. The vast majority of people who legitimately desire to have a home would go north, south, east or west.

Sir H. Butcher: I quite agree. Anybody who is without a home will go anywhere to find one. But how are we to provide such people with homes? That is what hon. Members should endeavour to direct their minds to rather than argue about how far rent control has interfered with demand. In my view, the right thing to do is to subsidise the person and not artificially interfere with property.
The problems of the South-East are pretty bad. We must do a great deal more to make the industrial areas of the Midlands and the North far more attractive to our people. I welcome what the Government have done. They have done a great deal in giving grants, making remissions of Income Tax and improvements in road services. I hope that the rail services will be equally improved to make the Midlands and the North more accessible.
However, I do not think that that alone will do. In some way, we must appeal to the leaders of that strange group of executives of the middle level who mean so much. There was a lot of discussion in the House a little while ago about the "brain drain" out of this country to America because people were feeling frustrated. These are the people who have a particular and important place in our community. We must make the Midlands and the North attractive to this group of people. There is a responsibility on the Government to make them attractive so that young people will go and live there. Do not let us think that this can be done immediately by making them attractive to the young men. We must make them equally attractive to their wives. We must provide in these areas the same opportunities for schooling, culture, and so on, as are available anywhere else.

Mr. Graham Page: We have the Beatles in the North-West, which makes it glamorous.

Sir H. Butcher: I would not say a word against the Beatles. They have put Liverpool on the map. However, I hope that we shall have coming out of Liverpool not only the Beatles and their form of culture. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has almost given me a peg on which to hang another hat. One of the country's great orchestras is in great danger. Here is an opportunity for someone in the North to make a real cultural advance. Instead of having all the orchestras crowding in the South in competition with one another we should give them a generous subsidy so that, just as there is the Salzburg Festival and the Edinburgh Festival, a great city like Sheffield could deliberately lay itself out as a centre for cultural activity. If we just sit back and deal with rent restriction and tinker with arrangements for buying land through various odd commissions, well meant though that may be, we shall not get anywhere.
The proposal of the party opposite is that when land is ripe for development the Government should purchase it and pay a bonus at the time of purchase but not the full market value, the idea of the bonus being to bring the land into the market and to give something to the farmer whose land is to be converted from farming land to building land. The idea of not giving the full market value is to keep the land lower in price when it is broken up into plots. That seems to me admirable, but let us follow through the process.
Suppose that the plots are sold in bulk to a private enterprise builder. A restriction must be put at once on the price at which he sells the land content of his house, otherwise we shall have given him a magnificent profit straight away. Therefore, we restrict the land content of his house and all we do is to allow him the cost of the land, plus the interest charges on the land while he is developing it, plus a small profit to take account of risk in dealing with the land, plus the cost of his labour, plus the cost of his buildings, plus a working profit, and he has a very cheap house to sell. Suppose that he advertises it and along comes an enormous crowd of people to buy the house. What is to be done? Is he to sell to the first young couple who come along, some of whom are

sufficiently bright to take a £300 or £400 profit on the contract as soon as they have a binding contract. There is nothing to stop them doing that unless we are prepared to impose on that plot a further restriction against resale for a period of years.
How long are we prepared to keep up that sort of thing? Are we to inhibit that man from taking an increased profit on his house when the profit on the other house 200 or 300 yards away is rising? If by chance the price of land should diminish, would we be prepared to give him a guarantee against loss in return for the fact that he has been inhibited from selling? That kind of scheme would not be right.
We must accept that it is supply and demand which in the end govern these things. Let us make those parts of England which were once the traditional homes of industry more attractive in every possible way. Let us ease the pressure on the South and on the great cities. Let an increasing number of people live in the smaller towns with the cultural advantages which too many people wrongly think only the South can give.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: In the short time I have been interested in politics I have come to learn how dangerous i is to enunciate general principles when discussing a particular case. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) fell into that trap when he said that in no circumstances should we subsidise house dwellers but that it was perfectly satisfactory to do so in respect of agriculture or the Liverpool Philharmonic.
I do not think that the argument is as simple as the hon. Member makes out. I do not regard the subject of rent control, for example, as being all black and white. I do not say that one should not subsidise any tenants who live in private rented accommodation. At the same time, injustice has been caused also to some of the landlords, who may not all be Rachmans, as they are sometimes painted. One gets private rented accommodation in the ownership of an old lady, for example, who has it as her only source of income. Therefore, I shall be quite satisfied to see rent control disappear in the


end although I do not wish it to do so in the conditions of housing shortage that we now face.
I welcome the announcement by the Minister this afternoon——

Mr. A. Lewis: What announcement?

Mr. Lubbock: His announcement that if the Conservatives were re-elected, no steps would be taken to decontrol dwellings which do not become controlled by vacancies occurring.

Mr. Lewis: Does the hon. Member really believe the pledges of the Conservative Party? He was not in the House prior to 1957, when the Minister's predecessor, replying to the late Aneurin Bevan, pledged the Government not to introduce decontrol. In 1957, however, they did it. If they were to win the election, they would forget this promise, as they forgot the other promises.

Mr. Lubbock: I should imagine that many of the promises made at the time of the last election were not kept by the Government when they got into power.

Mr. Rippon: Will the hon. Member name any one of them?

Mr. A. Lewis: The Rent Act.

Mr. Lubbock: We are discussing the Rent Act and I am talking about the promise made by the Minister today that if the Government were re-elected, no steps would be taken to decontrol further property, apart from that which becomes naturally decontrolled by vacancies which arise in the course of time.

Mr. Rippon: I appreciate what the hon. Member is saying and the force of his general argument. He has, however, backed up the false assertion of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) that the Government did not keep their promises.

Mr. A. Lewis: It is a statement of fact that the late Aneurin Bevan challenged the Tory Government before the 1957 election to give a declaration that it would not introduce decontrol. The Tory Party gave that pledge, but in 1957 passed the Rent Act. Surely, that was a broken pledge.

Mr. Lubbock: It sounds like it to me, but I was not in the House at the time, so I cannot confirm or deny what the hon. Member has said.
I do not see rent control as something which is black and white, as it is sometimes painted. We want to know a great deal more about the effects of decontrol before we can make a decision to allow further dwellings to be decontrolled. The Minister began his speech at the start of today's debate by referring to a study which was made of this subject. If my recollection is right, the results of the study of the effects of decontrol in London were published three years ago and no further investigation has been undertaken into it since, although, perhaps, this is one of the matters which will be gone into by the Milner Holland Committee. It is possible that the effects of decontrol on people who were subjected to it will be examined.
I agree with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) that it is rather a pity that we have to wait some months before the report of the Milner Holland Committee appears. Is it not possible that the Committee could be asked to make an interim report with any recommendations which it may have arrived at already? It seems highly improbable that, having sat for several months, the Committee has not reached any conclusions. I should like the Minister to consider requesting the Committee to submit to him, for consideration by the House, any recommendations which it has already arrived at. I should certainly like to see them before the next election.

Sir K. Joseph: The problem facing the Committee is that for the first few months it formulated the questions it wanted to ask. It then waited until the answers were gathered before it could make much progress with assessing the problem. For the first few months, the Committee was not able to get the facts. This had to be done first.

Mr. Lubbock: I appreciate that. The Committee requested hon. Members to give evidence and I received the form from the Committee two or three months ago. There must now have been time for the answers to be processed and I hope that the Committee might have


reached conclusions from the information which it has gathered. I should like particularly to know whether the Committee has any evidence to support the conclusions of the study of the effects of decontrol to which I have referred.
The Minister states that some 400,000 houses in Greater London are still under control. I believe that when the previous Report was published, the rate at which they were becoming decontrolled was fairly steady and that this was expected to continue. It would be interesting to know whether those forecasts have been borne out in practice.
Connected with this subject is that of the homeless families, particularly in Greater London. I had intended to make similar remarks to those of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South, because I am also one of the sponsors of the Homeless in Britain Fund, started by Christian Action. I agree with the hon. Member that it is not enough for any Member of Parliament or any member of the public to say that this is a matter which should concern merely the Government or the authorities and for individuals to take no action. It is important for us to take action if we have any social conscience, not only because of the effects of what we can do—because that is comparatively small—but also because, by doing this work, we can, perhaps, stimulate a greater awareness of the problems of homelessness among others.
I do not maintain that this is at all an easy problem. Certainly, it is not an easy one for the local authorities, because they have many families on their waiting lists. How are they to judge whether to give priority to someone who has been living in substandard accommodation for many years or to somebody who has recently been evicted? This is a judgment which falls to be made by the officials of local authorities and the housing committees and I do not envy them that responsibility. In the face of these difficulties, it is up to individuals to try to help with the problem if they can.
I would say to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South, if he were in his place, that it should cause him shame that a voluntary organisation of this character has had to take

over where the Government have failed. Nevertheless, having said that, I heartily endorse the efforts of this voluntary body and I hope that they will be as successful as they look like being.
I wish to ask the Minister one or two questions about his speech this afternoon. In giving the figures of comparisons over the next few years, he said that it was expected that 318,000 houses would be completed in England and Wales in 1964 and about the same number in 1965. He then divided that figure among new dwellings and replacements and said that 100,000 houses were needed each year for clearance, which would make half a million new dwellings available in the next two years. I question whether 100,000 houses for clearance is enough in any one year.
The most recent authoritative estimate that I can remember on the subject was that of Mr. Needleman, who said that the rate of replacement needed to be raised from 60,000 to something like 180,000. When I intervened earlier in the debate, the Minister did not quite grasp my meaning. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) had said that to keep pace with the dwellings which were approaching their hundredth birthday, one needed to replace about 150,000 dwellings a year. Therefore, the Minister's target of 100,000 is only two-thirds of what is necessary. Perhaps when his colleague winds up the debate, he will correct me if I am wrong. I remember distinctly the figure given by Mr. Needleman of 180,000 which, he said, was needed to replace the houses that were going past their hundredth birthday.
While I admit that there is no particular significance in the age of 100, it is the figure which has been accepted for use in the National Income Blue Book. It so happens also that we are approaching the hundredth anniversary of the Public Health Act, 1885, before which the conditions imposed upon buildings from a sanitary viewpoint were much less strict than they are today.
I hope that, by the year 1985, we shall not have any dwellings over 100 years old. Of course, no doubt there will be exceptions in that some will be modernised so that they may last much


longer. But these will be counterbalanced by the many houses of less than 100 years of age which have been built to much lower standards than we believe are necessary today.
The Minister talked about the distinction between slum houses and twilight houses and pointed out—he emphasised it more than once—that the criterion was whether the house had been declared medically unhealthy or not. This is rather a spurious distinction. A house which may be medically healthy for one person may be extremely unhealthy for another. This question is to some extent subjective. Are we not to take account of the spiritual health of the inhabitants of these twilight houses? That may be as important in some cases as more mundane matters like sanitation.
As I come in from my constituency I see, on the other side of Westminster Bridge, enormous tenement buildings looking like old workhouses. I dare say that they are only twilight houses.

Sir H. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman's description could also be applied to many blocks of luxury flats with high rents.

Mr. Lubbock: I do not think, if the hon. Gentleman saw the buildings I am talking about, that he would care to pay an inflated rent for a flat there.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I have been in the buildings the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is referring to. They are slums.

Mr. Lubbock: What I am trying to point out is that the distinction that the Minister makes between slums and twilight houses is not very realistic. He says that there are 650,000 slums and a total of 2,750,000 slums and twilight houses, so his definition allows a certain amount of looseness.
The right hon. Gentleman said that at the present rate of clearance, slightly stepped up from the current 64,000 a year, we should be able to clear the slums by 1973. He agreed with the hon. Member for Fulham that this would not mean a very significant advance on the present rate of clearance.
One gathers from this that the Government will not begin to tackle the

question of twilight houses before 1973. Can I have understood aright that they are slightly to step up the present rate of slum clearance of 64,000 a year in order to deal with the 650,000 slums by 1973 and that, meanwhile, some plan for dealing with twilight houses is to be evolved? Are we not to make even a start on them before 1973?
The right hon. Gentleman did not even mention the "pre-fabs" built under the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944. I have been perturbed about the slow rate of clearance of these "pre-fabs" for some time. I wrote to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government last year pointing out that, at the present rate of removal, it would be another 15 years before the last one was cleared.
The hon. Gentleman replied that if I looked at the figures at the end of 1963 I would see that the rate of demolition had been improved and that it would be six to eight years before the last "pre-fab" disappeared. Unfortunately for him, I have a fairly long memory, although I suffer from the problem which scientists are beginning to discover, that of "information retrieval". I could not find the information in my files but I could remember the sense of it.
When the 1963 figures were published, I looked up the figures for the last four December quarters and found that the rate of reduction of "pre-fabs" had varied between 5,000 and 6,000 a year over the last four years and that the total was now down to 70,580. A little arithmetic shows that it will be 12 to 13 years before the last one is removed although they were built to last only 10 years. They are already seven years beyond the life for which they were built.
I wonder if the Minister has ever been in a "pre-fab". I doubt it. If he has, I expect that it was one which had been specially prepared for his visit, complete with nice new muslin curtains. I recently visited one in my constituency where it is necessary to put a bucket under the roof every time it rains because the inside of the aluminium roof has condensation running between the plaster boards. Every now and then the local authority renews the insulation but it never lasts long. We see no sign of


this sort of problem being dealt with and the Minister did not even condescend to mention it today.
I do not see any sign of urgency by the Government in tackling many of the problems we have been discussing, so I shall tonight recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to go into the Division Lobby against the Government.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) based his slum clearance figure on the age of houses being 100 years old and said, as I understood it, that as each house became 100 years old it should be demolished. I hope I am misinterpreting him. I live in a 100-year-old house which is very good.

Mr. Lubbock: I quoted a figure given by Mr. Needleman of the National Institute two years ago.

Mr. Page: I do not believe one can have any rule of thumb over this. It is necessary for a local authority continually to review the housing in its area, to decide which houses need clearing and which may be improved. Indeed, the hon. Member drew attention to the fact that some houses which are not very old—the "pre-fabs"—should be removed at once. There are many much older houses, perhaps 150 to 200 years old, which were substantially built and can certainly be brought up to modern standards. We should not base our arguments on the 1955 Survey. We have gone wrong at times in basing arguments on those figures.
In this Parliament we have had many housing debates—rightly so, because no matter concerns our constituents more and no matter involves more human happiness if we succeed and more human distress if we fail. I would point out here that individual members who happen to have an interest in companies which hold property or in building societies—and I declare my own interest here—are no less concerned about the human aspect of the problem than are any other hon. Members. I say that because of some remarks made earlier in the debate.
Although we have had many housing debates in the last five years, the background has changed fundamentally from

what it was five years ago or even two years ago. Of course, we still have the demand for houses, and at present it is probably greater than ever before. That surely is because increased earnings and savings, younger marriages and the improved health of the elderly have all led to increased demand for separate homes.
Although there is still a shortage, greater perhaps than at any time since the war, because of that demand, we must set that demand against the background of 3½ million new homes built since 1951 and a stepping-up of the rate of new building. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) joked about the increasing population. He might like to know that for every child born under the Conservative Government a new house has been built. We intend to keep up that record, although perhaps a little pressed at the moment by the Royal Households.
The background to this debate is different from that which applied even a couple of years ago. Not only have there been 3½, million new homes since 1951, but 500,000 slum houses have been cleared, and the concentration now is on the local efforts at slum clearance, namely, in the thirty-eight cities in which the house-building rate has been put up by about 75 per cent. We are talking now also against the background of 50 per cent. rise in owner-occupation and a great advance in the modernising of the older homes by means of the standard grants.
In addition, there is one other very important point which has come up in the last eighteen months to two years. That is the availability of more money through building societies to enable people to buy their own homes. This has put a completely new aspect on the problem in the last couple of years. Previously the building societies could not find the money to meet the demands of those who wanted to borrow money to buy their homes. Now the money is available, and this has been a very great relief, particularly to the young married couples and to those seeking a home for the first time. This position arises out of the general policy of the Government which has enabled savings at a rate never dreamed of ten years ago.
After all, the building society money is the savings of the people, and because of these savings people have been able to buy their own homes. What people? I take the figures given recently by one of the larger building societies to show the sort of people who are now able to buy houses. Taking the figures in the North-West, one-quarter of the new house purchases and one-half of the existing house purchases are by people with incomes under £16 a week. Taking the income a little higher, one-half of the new house purchases and two-thirds of the existing house purchases have been made through this building society by those whose incomes are between £16 and £24 a week.

Mr. Mapp: Does the hon. Member appreciate that in many of the older towns a very large proportion of the 50 per cent. buying their homes through building societies are doing so under distressed conditions, paying £400, £500, £600 for homes which are on their last legs? They are driven to this resort in order to house themselves.

Mr. Page: That may be so in certain circumstances, but I think that the hon. Gentleman has exaggerated it when he says 50 per cent. I think that a small percentage of sitting tenants are perhaps obliged to purchase under those conditions, but the point is that the majority who seek assistance through building societies are those with small incomes.
The figures in the North-East are very much the same. Over one-third of the new house purchases and nearly one-half of the existing house purchases are by people with incomes under £16 a week. This has been made possible over recent years.

Mr. A. Lewis: What are the figures for London?

Mr. Page: I have not taken the London figures. I am quite prepared to believe that for the purchase of houses in the London area one needs a higher income.

Mr. Lewis: Can the hon. Member obtain the figures for me? Surely when he was getting figures it would have been better to have got national figures; or, if regional, to have brought in London and some of the big cities.

Mr. Page: I can provide the hon. Gentleman with the document from which I have taken these figures, which was issued by the Co-operative Permanent Building Society. It gives the London figures, but I did not bring the document into the House with me. I shall let the hon. Gentleman have it.
The availability of money through the building societies has enabled people with small incomes to purchase new houses as well as to purchase older houses.
There has been a further change in the background to our discussions on housing over the past year or two in the acceptance of the fact that system or industrialised building has a real contribution to make and that there can be a substantial increase in production from that. Several Members in this House, in previous housing debates four or five years ago, were urging that industrialised building and a break away from the traditional building would give us an increase in productivity. Frankly, I say that at that time we were groping; we hoped that we were saying the right things, and we believed that we were.
Now, by the initiative, the research, and the new ideas and lead given by the Minister of Public Building and Works——

Mr. Ellis Smith: It was urged in the last war.

Mr. Page: Perhaps the ideas sprang from the last war, and I wish that we had applied them a little quicker to the provision of homes for the people. But we are applying them with energy now through my right hon. Friend and the Ministry of Public Building and Works, and I am sure that this will enable the new target to be reached by the use of industrialised building, particularly by the local authorities which can give the long-term and large contracts.
It is now proved and accepted that industrialised building can produce an increase in productivity in housing. In reaching the target of 350,000 houses a year we are, in fact, a year ahead of our promise. I think we can confidently say that that figure will be reached this year by the number of starts and the


number of houses at present under construction, and that we shall be able to go on to the 400,000 figure very quickly. The hon. Member for Fulham says that when we get to the figure of 400,000 we ought to be clearing 150,000 slums. The Minister, I think, put the figure at 100,000, not that there is a very great difference between 100,000 and 150,000.

Mr. Richard Marsh: Just 50 per cent.

Mr. Page: I am not clear whether either the hon. Member or my right hon. Friend was talking about the actual number of houses to be cleared, or the new houses built to replace those cleared. An inquiry by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 1961 showed that for every three families moved from a slum clearance area, one more household broke away—I would have thought that the proportion would be rather larger, but that was the figure shown by the inquiry—so that four houses had to be built to cope with the three households which were moved from the slum clearance area because of the extra household that was formed. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Fulham is prepared to clear 150,000 houses from the slums and build 200,000 houses to replace them, but, by simple mathematics, that would be 50 per cent. of the 400,000 houses a year to be built.
I question whether the remaining 50 per cent. would be sufficient to meet the demand of the completely new households which will be produced over the next few years. Within that remaining 50 per cent., would local authorities be building for general needs? These figures need a little more study. But the argument is only as to the content of the 400,000 and no argument as to the niceties of that content can justify the words which the Opposition use in their Motion.
When they talk about inadequacy, it is incumbent upon the Opposition to say what is adequate, and when they talk about shortage to say what in their view is sufficiency, and when they talk about failure to say what in their view would be success. The Opposition have again shirked saying that and have again shirked their obligation in the debate.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I have listened to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), when he has spoken in Committee, with a great deal of respect, because he always brings a good deal of legal knowledge to this subject. However, tonight I have disagreed with practically every word he has said. I accept the ideal that it is desirable that a local authority should constantly review its slums, but what nonsense that is in the present situation in my constituency where there are still 475 slums to be cleared from the 1955 assessment of accommodation deemed to be unfit for human habitation. There is no point in chasing the local medical officer of health to find more to add to that number when although we are rehousing as quickly as we can we still have a large residue.
Nor do I agree with the hon. Member's figures about the possibility of mortgages from building societies. That is not my experience in a constituency which is only eight miles from here. Two factors intervene. One is that in industry today there are many people who are able to take home weekly pay including overtime which would justify a building society mortgage, but whose rate of pay is insufficient. The other is that when there has been sharp inflation in the price of houses, the building society's valuation is so much less than the seller is asking that far too much has to be found by deposit, often too much to be afforded by a young couple getting married.
I disagree profoundly with the practice of bandying about figures of large successes. I cannot translate those into terms of my own experience in my own constituency. I know that the Government can produce large numbers, but it is not only a matter of building more houses but of where they are built, their type and how they satisfy the housing need. It does not help acute areas such as mine if a large number of houses are built on the stockbroker fringe of Surrey. It does not help my area if houses are built in Scotland which is being drained of people coming here to seek employment. The areas of industry acting as a magnetic attraction for employment are the areas suffering from housing problems.
I want to draw attention to what lies behind the figures that we have been discussing since half-past three this afternoon. We do not need to convert the Minister—we have done that in the last four years—to the realisation that the problem exists in pockets and that there are many depressed housing areas which need special attention. There is a Bill going through the House which pays some attention to that, but the trouble is that it does far too little and too late. The hon. Member for Crosby knows that every time we have tried to strengthen that Bill in Committee and to ensure that ordinary amenities are provided, the Government have resisted our proposals in order to safeguard landlords.
I do not want to talk about only Willesden, but I do so because its problems are prototypes of many other similar areas, including the 38 mentioned by the Minister. Unless we can get to the reality of the statistics, the debate will remain arid. We are talking about so many homeless families. I should like to describe my experience of the Friday before Christmas. A homeless man came to see me. He was 26 years of age and he came to see me at my weekly "surgery". He told me that he had been married for three years and had a child aged two. The lodgings which he had managed to find were unable to accept children and for three months the family had been split up. He said that his marriage was breaking up because he was living in one place while his wife and child were in a hostel elsewhere, and now his wife had had a second baby and would be leaving hospital on Christmas Eve. But there was no place for her to come home to. He asked me to do something to bring the family together again and to save his marriage.
I had to tell him that there were 274 families in the constituency who were in similar circumstances and that there was no room at the inn for him. This is the situation in Willesden where we have many families split up. At present 48 are housed in Middlesex county hostels. How can we prate of family life in those circumstances?
Fortunately, this story had a happy ending because I was able to find a

fairy godfather—Dr. Beeching. My constituent was a railway man who was earning £l2 a week. Hon. Members opposite have probably ridden behind him when they have travelled from Euston to Liverpool. Dr. Beeching was able to find him a railway cottage and that solved his problem. But I was still left with 274 families which are split up and the 48 in hostels without any Dr. Beeching to rescue them.
The Minister said that the Government's problem was to help the local authorities to find the land. My own authority has over the years provided over 5,000 dwellings for people in its own area of land shortage, but when it found 24½ acres which would have housed 40 dispossessed families, the Minister refused in 1959 and again in 1962 to confirm the compulsory purchase order.
I refer, of course, to the land in Oman Avenue. The right hon. Gentleman knows the case. The land is owned by All Souls College, Oxford. I am ashamed that an institute of learning is prepared to turn down an application to enable the homeless to be housed, and I am surprised that the Minister dismissed the case by saying, first, that houses are eventually going to be built, and, secondly, that the proposal provides for only 40 families and in view of the many difficulties that we have, this number is only a sprinkling. If the Minister allowed the council to purchase these two and a half acres to build houses, the people who are living in hostels would regard him as even more of a veritable fairy godfather than the constituent to whom I previously referred regards Dr. Beeching.
I challenge the Minister to tell me which are council houses and which are privately developed houses in my area. One of the reasons given for turning down the request for a compulsory purchase order was that if permission to acquire the land was granted, and council houses were built there, they might spoil the amenities of other flats in the area. If the Minister accompanies me to Donnington Avenue I will show him blocks of flats which are side by side and invite him to tell me which flats lower the tone of the neighbourhood. I challenge him to tell me which are council property, and which are private property.
I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the price of land has no bearing on this problem. We have had to borrow £10 million, which we are repaying at a very high rate of interest. The cost of land and the rate of interest charged on money borrowed are relevant factors in the numbers of houses which can be built for our people. We paid £240,000 for twelve acres of land in Mount Pleasant Road Kensal Rise. We paid £250,000 for a similar site in Salusbury Road in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet). Our only hope at the moment is that Dr. Beeching will release some of his surplus railway land to enable us to develop it in other ways. The trouble is that when we seek to get planning authority in the present acute situation, six months elapse before anything happens and innumerable delays occur.
In Willesden the average dwelling costs £3,000 to build. We have to pay £6,000 by way of interest over 60 years, which means that to house one person in Willesden costs the council £9,000, plus a charge for all the other service contingencies that occur.
I refer next to the problem of substandard houses, with which we are trying to deal. I take these figures from the 1961 census. There were 15,000 families in Willesden who had to share W.C.s. There were 310 houses without a W.C. at all, yet I remind the House Willesden is only eight miles from Big Ben. There were 17,000 people who had to share fixed baths, 12,000 without a bath, and 18,000 without a hot water tap. The present situation makes nonsense of the figures that we have been given of what has been done in the last ten years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) showed this afternoon. What kind of family life, and what kind of neighbourly understanding, can there be if one out of every three persons in Willesden has to share accommodation?
I also draw the Minister's attention to the problems that arise from going to the rent tribunal. I have sent him details of this case, and I am awaiting a reply. I take this opportunity of thanking the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for their replies to my letters, as since the debate started I

have had two of them handed to me. My constituent wrote:
My wife, baby son, and myself are living in a furnished room and kitchenette, and we're paying £4 10s. a week plus approx. 30s. electricity. Yesterday, the rent tribunal fixed the rent of my room at £2 10s. a week, so the landlord has now trebled the cost of my electricity. I have phoned the rent tribunal who said that they can do nothing about this.
I wrote to the Minister, to the Electricity Board and to the local authority. I have to inform the Minister that that man has been forcibly evicted, with the aid of the police, because the claim was made that the electricity bill was not paid The reason for that was that the landlord wanted to charge him £4 10s. instead of 30s., and that rather lends strength to the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) was given leave to introduce this afternoon. I think that some form of resale price maintenance should be clapped on electricity charges in furnished accommodation.

Sir K. Joseph: Have the latest details of the case been sent to me?

Mr. Pavitt: I have sent the Minister details of this case, and I am awaiting his reply. He has had two letters, one giving the facts and the second informing him that since my first letter the man had been evicted from his house. It is against that sort of background that we ask the House to consider the problem that we are discussing.
There are 4,447 old people living alone in the two constituencies of Willesden. On Friday morning I was out canvassing, as hon. Members in the London area do when local elections are in the offing. I could not get an answer to my knock at one door because the previous day the old gentleman who lived there bad fallen into the fire and been burned to death. This was only last Friday. These are the human problems involved in our talk about so many units of accommodation being made available, and a certain percentage of slum clearance having been carried out. These are the problems which hon. Members have to translate in their constituencies. They have to tell the people that it will be all right, and that by 1973 everything will be fine. The old persons—the 4,447 people to whom I have referred—who are living alone are not interested in the housing problem in


1973. In passing I pay tribute to the marvellous work done for the old people by the W.V.S., with its "Meals on Wheels" service.
These are the social problems that we have to consider against the background of housing, and unless the Government can produce more direction, energy and drive not just in the twilight areas but in the really black areas, such as mine, the realisation of the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) will take far too long for civilisation to be able to bear.
There is no help for the 5,928 people who are still on my housing list, in spite of the fact that last year my local borough re-housed 357 families. Out of that 357, no fewer than 267 were slum clearance cases. It was quite right that they should be rehoused. Another 74 were hardship cases—cases where illness or some other reason required their special consideration. But that did not save the man with coronary thrombosis. We could not rehouse him. I had a letter of thanks three months later from the widow, telling me that her husband had died because he could not negotiate stairs. He needed accommodation downstairs, but such accommodation is unobtainable in Willesden. Although we rehoused 357 families, only 16 came off the housing list. At that rate I have worked it out that the housing list will be cleared in 364 years' time. Surely we cannot tolerate this kind of situation.
In spite of the last-minute Bill that we have just finished upstairs, which has come at the end of this Parliament, as a result of the gradual conversion of the Government, under pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), the Government still persist in their doctrinaire belief in the law of supply and demand. They still cannot see anything else but the pounds, shillings and pence of the market economy. In those circumstances, I hope that when the House divides tonight it will show its hearty detestation of the failure of the Government to deal with areas of acute housing hardship, such as mine.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pannell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt)

who speaks so eloquently on this subject but, without wishing to be impertinent, I recommend him to check his housing list. He might find that the position that he has referred to does not exist today. Such a check has been carried out in Liverpool. In opening the debate the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said that there were 40,000 on the waiting list in Liverpool. That was the position a few months ago, but all those on the waiting list have since been written to and asked whether they were still applicants for houses. Thousands did not reply, and now the number has been reduced to about half what it was. I am pleased to be able to make that correction, because it does Liverpool no good to exaggerate what I agree to be a difficult situation.

Mr. Brockway: Is it the case in Liverpool—as it is in Slough and many other towns—that because there are so many applicants restrictions have to be imposed upon them, and that the housing list therefore under-represents rather than over-represents the number of people who need houses?

Mr. Pannell: Only to a limited extent. There is a qualifying period of five years' residence, and a person must be on the waiting list for six months after his application has been received before he can be registered for a house, but those are the only limitations.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: But is the hon. Member assuming that those people on Liverpool's housing list who have not replied to the inquiry are not now in need of accommodation?

Mr. Pannell: I do not know how one should regard it, but if these people who have been on the waiting list for houses for years, were written to and asked specifically whether they wished to remain on the list, and if there was no reply, one would imagine that they have no further interest in acquiring a house from the corporation.
It is often said that in Liverpool there are 80,000 unfit houses. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) will agree when I say that that is an exaggeration, unless an unfit house is one without running hot water and without a bathroom. There are at least 80,000 such


houses in Liverpool, but many are capable of conversion, and it is an exaggeration to represent Liverpool as having 80,000 slum houses. In comparison with other great cities Liverpool is in a rather parlous situation. I consider that such areas as Liverpool should be specially scheduled and have the same degree of housing subsidy as is given to comparable areas in Scotland which receive the general grant on what we should consider a very generous scale.
Twilight areas represent one of the principal problems in Liverpool. Although the new housing legislation will enable efforts to be made to overcome that difficulty the effect will be long term. We cannot look for any real amelioration of the position in the immediate future. I must declare an interest, as I am the chairman of a non-profit-making housing society which has caused me nothing but expense and worry. I formed it under the provisions of the 1961 housing Measure in the hope of converting some of the houses in the twilight area with the aid of loans from the Ministry, but the whole project has misfired.
Houses near the cathedral are so unfashionable and command such a small price that after conversion the district valuer will not agree a value equal to the cost of acquisition and conversion. The amount of loan from the Ministry is limited to the value placed on the property by the district valuer, and therefore the project has to fall. It is a matter of great disappointment to me, because if these houses fall into the hands of other people I am afraid that their future owners may include speculative landlords who will get as much rent as possible for them in the shortest possible time.
When I desired to convert a house in order to obtain an improvement grant it was necessary for me to introduce all the modern amenities including a fire escape if the building was more than 24 ft. high. If the property was semidetached it might be that the other half would be crowded, with one family living in every room, and there would be no obligation to provide a fire escape. This indicates the difficulty facing a local authority which attempts to do anything about property in twilight

areas. Although the Act may make provision for something to be done, an authority which attempts to do it will have the problem of rehousing all the people who live in the property. There is a temptation for people to crowd into a house so that they may be entitled to be rehoused.
Before giving way to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I propose to gallop a little on my hobby horse. Although the position is chronically bad in Liverpool, it is immeasurably worse in Birmingham, London and other great cities. It is, therefore, criminal folly to allow more and more immigrants into the country, at the rate at which they have been arriving, which is 70,000 a year since 1st July last year. That will aggravate an already dangerous position.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) referred in his closing remarks to immigrants. I do not wish tonight to become involved in that debate; we have had it before. But we must always make clear what we mean by "immigrants". We must always make it clear that when we talk about keeping people out of Britain we mean the Irish and the Cypriots and the Maltese and the West Indians and others. Do not let us apply our immigration policy only to those whose faces happen to be a little darker than our own. Whatever the hon. Member says or does not say on this subject, let me tell him that if every immigrant were to be returned tonight, wherever they come from, there would still be a vicious housing problem in London, the greatest city in the world.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) rightly said, it is inevitable that when talking about housing one tends to become emotional and to talk about the human aspect. I will try hard not to be emotional, but I shall refer to the human aspect. This is why we have once again introduced this subject on the Floor of the House.
I thought that in his speech the Minister was taking the advice of the Prime Minister that in every speech made one must have an eye on the General Election. I thought that the Minister's speech


was directed to that purpose alone. In some instances he seemed to ignore the obvious. In some respects I thought that it was almost dishonest. For example, he said that land prices and the rents charged today have very little relevance to the arguments on housing and the shortage of housing.

Sir K. Joseph: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman said that, and I took it down carefully. He said that the argument about the price of land and the price of rents had nothing to do with the abundance of houses.

Sir K. Joseph: What I said was that I thought that there was no evidence that the price of land or the rate of interest were limiting factors in the number of new houses built. That is a very different thing.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member can have it whichever way he likes on that argument. He says that the rate of interest and the price of land have very little relevance to new house building. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) had made an extraordinarily good case to show that this is one of the burning issues which faces those who are living in London in a housing shortage.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)—I am sorry that he is not here at the moment—put his finger on the point when he said that in spite of the Conservative Government's claim to have built over 3 million houses since they have been in office, the demand is bigger than ever before.
It is quite right to say that the standard of living has improved in Britain. Anyone who does not admit that is foolish. It has risen since 1945, and I hope that each year as we leave the last war it will rise even higher, whatever Government is in power. This is not a debate on the economic situation, but I argue that the rate of improvement in the standard of living in this country has not been as great as in other countries. But that is an argument for another occasion.
Of course, people are asking for better things today. I am not all that old, but

I can remember the time when it was not regarded as fearful to live in a slum—and I was born in a slum. It was not considered intolerable to have two or three families sharing a toilet and to live in accommodation which by modern standards would immediately be regarded as unfit by any medical officer of health. I am talking of days only just before the war. Of course, people are coming on to the housing lists who would not before have dreamed of doing so.
But that is no excuse not to meet the new demand or to meet what I regard as the progressive outlook of our people in wanting something better and not being satisfied with the lowest common factor. The Government always say, "We have built x number of houses". The Minister of Housing said it and I am sure that the Minister of Public Building and Works will say it. They ask, "How many do the Labour Party propose to build?" The Minister agrees that this is the question which he will ask. But I do not think that this is just an argument about how many houses we build. To a large extent it is an argument about what sort of houses we build, where we build them and at what price they are built.
Here we are back on the main argument. If they wanted to do so, the Labour Party could announce that they would build 500,000 houses a year, and I have no doubt that we could build them. The Conservative Government built over 300,000 houses in 1953 for the very simple reason that they stopped building schools and they stopped building hospitals.

Sir K. Joseph: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mellish: The Minister cannot deny the truth of these matters. The then Minister of Education had the most awful time in this House because of the cuts which were made in the education programme to satisfy the Government's target of 300,000 houses. Therefore, it is a question of priorities. I shall not go into competition with the Government on the number of houses to be built. I want to talk to the Minister about how to deal with the housing shortage as I see it now and what I think the Government can do and should be doing.
The vast majority of families buying their own homes today do not do so because they want to be property-owning democrats or because they love the idea of buying their own homes. They do so because they have no other choice, because there are no houses to let. It is as simple as that. I speak as a London Member. Hon. Members opposite, to be fair to them, have said that their experience is the same. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) said this. People come to London Members and tell us how in sheer desperation they have turned to estate agents to try to get a home. Private enterprise last year built only 5,000 flats and houses for letting.
What I want to see to alleviate this immediate problem—I am not speaking now of long-term building—is a genuine 100 per cent. mortgage granted by local authorities at a low rate of interest. I want it done now. Will the Government allow local authorities to finance their home loan schemes from the Public Works Loan Board? What is to be done to protect those buying their own homes from the consequences of sub-standard building? Perhaps the Minister of Public Building and Works will tell us when he replies. There is a Private Member's Bill on the stocks at the moment dealing with this subject. I do not think that it will ever see the light of day. The Government should introduce a Bill to deal with this subject. It is a known fact that at the moment substandard building is going on. Jerrybuilding is taking place to a large extent in many homes which are being built today. What does the Minister of Public Building and Works intend to do about it?
What do the Government intend to do about the problem of the young married couple trying to buy a home, if one is available, applying for a mortgage and then being told that the house is valued at a much lower figure, either by the building society or by the local government surveyor? Every Member of the House knows that this happens. The 100 per cent. mortgage is in many instances a myth. A house is built at, say, £4,000. The young couple try to get a 100 per cent. mortgage. The house is valued at only £3,500. Therefore, the

loan is only £3,500, even if a 100 per cent. mortgage is granted, and in many instances building societies do not grant 100 per cent. mortgages. The young couple are therefore asked to find an extra £500. I can tell the Ministers from experience that hundreds of young couples walk away from estate agents' offices crying because of this. What does the Minister intend to do about it?
The Minister says that co-ownership is the simple answer. I tell the Minister that at this moment of time it is impossible for these sort of people to buy houses at today's prices. I have obtained details of the average price of houses in London, not from Transport House, but from building societies. The average price of a new home in London is £4,133 this year, compared with £3,788 a year ago, an increase of £345. Taking the example that I know the House will want to think about, if last year a young couple thinking of getting married saved £300 towards a deposit on a house and went to buy a house this year, that £300 has gone down the drain. The Minister says that this does not matter and that it is not relevant to the housing shortage. He says that it is not a valid argument. He says that it is not what the Government are concerned with.
The rise in the price of second-hand or old houses is even greater. They have risen from £3,584 last year to £4,120 which is the, average price of a secondhand house in London today—in other words, an increase of £536, or 15 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, who made his usual brilliant speech today—he always speaks brilliantly on housing—reminded the Minister that since 1959 the average price of new homes has risen by 34 pet cent. During this period the price of housing increased more than any other component in the cost-of-living index. We are told by the Government that this does not matter and that it is not a relevant argument when considering the housing shortage. Do they realise that building coats have increased by 15 per cent. so that the difference between the 15 per cent. on the one hand and the 34 per cent. on the other accounts for the leap in land prices?
By keeping interest rates at a generally high level, no appreciable reduction can be made in the rate at which home loans are made. A young married couple going to their local hon. Member will explain—and this will be borne out by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, not only those who represent London constituencies—that when they have tried to get a loan the interest has been maintained at such a high rate that the prospects of their getting sufficient money are appalling.
The Alliance Building Society said that that company's interest rates would be reduced on 1st April this year. As a result of the increase in the Bank Rate which has been announced, the society is not now going to reduce its rates for home loans. The Public Works Loan Board has altered its rates of loans 29 times in the last 12 years—and this is the body from which local authorities borrow. In his speech today the right hon. Gentleman said that it was non-sense to argue that a local authority was deterred because interest charges prevented it from planning. I do not know what is the local government experience of the right hon. Gentleman, but I suspect that all his experience rests with the City of London—and any experience he has in that area of the shortage of homes, particularly being a sheriff and, I gather, not democratically elected——

Sir K. Joseph: The City of London makes the largest rate fund contribution to its housing account of any local authority in the land.

Mr. Mellish: The City can afford to make a grant to anyone. All I am saying is that a local authority never quite knows where it stands because of rising interest rate charges. It is not encouraged to plan ahead when faced with rising land costs, building costs and ever-soaring interest rates. One of the biggest deterrents to local authority building is interest charges, which are so high.

Mr. Graham Page: While on the subject of interest rates, is it not a fact that the local authorities borrow very large sums of money at very low rates of interest—under 4 per cent.—and are making a good deal of housing progress because of that?

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman must be living in a different world from me. He had better ask his right hon. Friend for the answer to that one. In 1951 the L.C.C. could build a flat in London for £2,000 including the price of the land and, by borrowing over 60 years—and these are the happy days the hon. Member for Crosby probably has in mind—at 3 per cent. the local authority would have to find £72 a year for that period to pay off the loan, with interest. Thus the cost of the flat at the end of the 60 year period would be £4,300. Consider the cost today, although according to the Minister this is not relevant to the argument. Exactly the same flat would today cost £5,400, including the land. Borrowing today over 60 years at the current rate of interest —which is 6⅛ per cent.; and whatever hon. Members opposite say that is the rate at which local authorities are borrowing—the local authority would have to find £341 a year and at the end of the 60-year period the flat would have cost £20,000.

Sir K. Joseph: Sir K. Joseph rose——

Mr. Mellish: I will give way. I am trying to explain what this means to local authorities generally.

Sir K. Joseph: I have pointed out that, despite all these figures, more houses are being built each year and are being bought; and that is a convincing answer to all of the hon. Gentleman's figures.

Mr. Mellish: The Minister does not understand. He must appreciate the way we and many others consider this matter. Of course there are houses to let. If I had £10,000 I could go out tonight in the London area and get one. I can assure the Minister that there are several hundred homes to let in London, and, if one has the money, one can get them. People in my constituency would not have a housing problem at all if they each had £10,000 available. As they have not that sort of money, they must seek a rented house, or try to buy a house through the building society, which they so often find impossible.
We on this side are desperately anxious that young people should have the right to buy their own homes. It is important to say that. For too long have we been identified as a party of the council tenant.


Will the Minister tell us what is being done to ease the burden of legal charges on house purchase? That is a matter for his Department and for him. Quite recently, the Sunday Times very properly said—and some of my hon. Friends may not like this—that the legal fees are excessive, and that home buyers are, in effect, subsidising the whole legal business. Talk about the poor living on the poor!
My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham got no answer to his question about the Conservative Party's manifesto in 1959 on the subject of loans to building societies for pre-1919 houses. In an interjection, the Minister spoke of £100 million, of which he alleged that a considerable proportion had already been spent, but he forgot to mention that the same manifesto said that, if need be, the Conservatives would increase the figure. The need has been there all the time, and I hope that the Minister of Public Building and Works will tell us whether it is the intention of the Government to start that scheme again, and to extend it. I can tell him that the building societies would like the opportunity of using the money for the purpose.
Fewer council houses are being built now than in 1950, and the quality of council building has been drastically reduced. The average size of the three-bedroomed council flat was 1,050 sq. ft. in 1950, but it has now been reduced to an average of 897 sq. ft.
Talking of London—the London that means a lot to me, not only because I am a London Member but because I was born and bred here—12,000 families are registering every year on the L.C.C. housing list, which already has the names of 60,000 families. The terrible fact is that last year we were able to rehouse only 4,000 families, although 10,000 families were rehoused in 1951. From what we have heard today, I understand that Glasgow has a housing list of over 70,000, Birmingham has a list of 46,000 and, in spite of what the hon. Member for Kirkdale has said, there can be no doubt that Liverpool faces housing problems almost as bad as London's.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South spoke of the homeless, as did the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) who is not here—

the trouble with the Liberal Members is that they are always missing when one is speaking from the Front Bench. Both hon. Members referred to the voluntary societies with which they are associated. These societies do a great job. They are composed, in the main, of people who are so shattered and ashamed to think that there is homelessness in this year of 1964 that they feel that they, as individuals, should do something about it.
Homelessness in London shows no sign of abating. Over 1,000 families a year are admitted to L.C.C. accommodation. Tonight, there are over 5,000 women and children completely homeless. I have been to Newington Lodge, where the homeless first go. One can go there, and come out ready to sob one's heart out. These people are not the coloureds of whom the hon. Member for Kirkdale spoke. More than half of them are Londoners, born and bred. Tonight they are homeless. If the Minister would visit Newington Lodge and make inquiries he would find that most of these families are victims of the Rent Act.
I do not deny that we have our problem families. Whatever form of society we may have there will always be a section of the community for which, somehow, few people can do anything. I admit that some of them are in these hostels, but the vast majority are so ashamed and helpless that one can only feel ashamed and helpless too when one visits them. And it does not end there. When they come out they go to halfway homes and there the number is appallingly high.
The frustration in dealing with housing is that the normal families are also on the waiting list and the question is to whom priority is to be given—the homeless or the person who has been on the waiting list for a long time. These are the balancing factors and the Minister in his cold-blooded way talks about the price of houses as not counting very much and as having little to do with the case made. If houses were much cheaper not only in London but elsewhere a great deal of this problem could be solved.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about slum clearance and about twilight homes. Let hon. Members note that expression. Some of these homes that


I have described do not get any light, let alone twilight. About 150,000 houses become 100 years old every year. Most medical officers of health today will not declare a home unfit for habitation for the simple reason that they know that the local authority cannot do anything about them. The medical officer is inhibited from saying what he knows he ought to say about a particular house because he knows all the difficulties.
The same applies to overcrowding. What is the point of a medical officer of health applying the public health Acts and designating a house as overcrowded when the local authority cannot do anything about it? This is where the argument about immigrants comes in, and I agree that in many instances they are one of the biggest problems that we have to face today.
About 4 million dwellings will be 100 years old by 1980 according to the N.E.D.C. Report, but the right hon. Gentleman said that by 1973 we shall have solved the housing problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] What was the 1973 remark about then? [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it tomorrow."] It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman does not make it clear. He certainly gave the impression that 1973 would be the date when the housing problem would be solved.
We have argued at ad nauseam about the Rent Act. The Home Secretary must be ashamed at times of some of the misery created by the Act which he brought in. This is an interesting situation to which I should refer for the benefit of my hon. Friends and others who did not hear what the Minister said. The right hon. Gentleman said today that if the Conservative Party again comes to power—which is a terrifying thought—he has given a pledge that there will be no further decontrol of properties, that is that the £40 rateable value will stay for London and Scotland and the £30 for the rest of the country.

Mr. William Ross: There will be another Tory revolt.

Mr. Mellish: Let us be grateful for small mercies, but as things are going the truth is that creeping decontrol will itself have put a great number of people in this position. There can be no doubt

of the unhappiness caused by decontrol, in spite of the argument by the party opposite that it has not had a severe effect. I can only say from my experience as a Member of Parliament that one of the worst problems that I have to deal with is this matter of decontrol, and the fact that, for instance, when the tenant, the mother of the family, dies the house becomes decontrolled.
I do not know the answer to this problem except the answer given by my party. We have said that we shall repeal the Act and that means that we shall reinstitute controls, confirm existing controls and stop creeping decontrol. This is what we are committed to do and this is what we shall do. Two million people are still living in controlled tenancies. We on this side of the House give a firm and definite pledge that those tenancies will be protected not only immediately but while we are in power.
One interesting subject for speculation, in the light of what was said earlier, is what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) will say about it. Of course, he is always resigning on great points of principle. He was the Minister of Health and he resigned for one reason or another. He cannot resign from anything now except his own seat in the House. A couple of weeks ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that rent control was a giant evil and must be removed. This Government have now decided that they will keep it on. All this makes a mockery of what we were told about the Rent Act. It was much heralded as a tremendous advance in housing, one of the great things which the Government were doing to release property for accommodation, but now they say that, if they get back to power, they will do nothing more about it. For my part, I can only say that we shall be grateful for the small mercies which we have had.
Those of us who were born and have lived in London and have seen the housing problem grow around us recognise that it will not be solved by slogans about building x number of houses. There is still a case for urgently examining the question of accommodation which is available in many areas


through under-occupation. I have always favoured, where possible, the abolition of private rented property. I have never believed that property is something from which people should draw a private gain. I have always believed, and my party believes, that property should be regarded as a social asset.
What about the problems which we shall face as time goes on? Tomorrow, we shall see the result of the South-East Study. We have a pretty good idea of some of the figures which it will disclose. I quote here from the Spectator—I gather that the editor is another right hon. Gentleman who has done his bit of resigning—
The report on the south-east survey will show that we must start to plan immediately for an extra population of at least two million and more, probably over three-and-a-half million people, within the next twenty ears, in the metropolitan corner of England; the corner which lies south and east of a line from the Wash to Bournemouth, and which already contains some 34 per cent. of the population of Britain, crowded on to only 17 per cent. of its land surface.
I hope that the result of the survey will show us plans for what is to be done in the future. No one can decide to build x number of houses unless he knows where they are going to be, and what more will be done to attract people away from the already congested areas. I ask the Minister of Public Building and Works to give us an indication of what we may expect tomorrow, an indication of the Government's long-term planning, an indication about new building techniques, whether the Government have any revolutionary ideas about industrialised house building systems and so on.
There is a case to be made for improvement within the building industry. I do not deny this from either the worker or management point of view. But the building industry as is constituted cannot possibly meet the commitments which are asked of it now. How is it to be reorganised? What plans has the Minister got? It is no good throwing out targets if one knows, as the Minister must know, that the building industry could not meet any targets, whether the Labour Government set them up or a Tory Government set them up.
We should like to know more from the Minister about genuine planning for the

building industry itself. What about his own Department? I should like to see the day when the Ministry of Public Building and Works really became a Ministry of building and works, with the greatest direct labour force in the world, building houses, factories and everything else. Why not? At least it would give a continuity of programme which could be guaranteed, avoiding the problems which face so many building contractors today. We have heard from experts on the benches opposite that one of the problems facing the building industry is the lack of continuity in programmes. If we had a State authority building and backing up the local authorities in their building, we could, I believe, give real planning and continuity.
The human misery created by the housing shortage is not something we can afford to play about with, bandying empty slogans or kicking the ball across the House of Commons. As one who has to live with it week after week, I say to the party opposite that the housing problem is not solved and it does not look like being solved in the foreseeable future. There is a great deal more misery to come. We tabled this Motion because we speak on behalf of all those who, in spite of what the Government have done, are still suffering. It was right that we should table it, and we shall vote for it tonight.

9.25 p.m.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): We have been discussing, as we have done on many other occasions, what we all agree is a great human problem. In so far as the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) was clearly moved by genuine concern for the difficult problems which this subject raises, we must welcome his speech. As he said, this is not a problem which can be easily solved. My argument will be directed towards showing that it cannot be solved by the methods which the Opposition propose.
Naturally, the hon. Member for Bermondsey dwelt on the situation in London, which we know raises special problems. It has been estimated that we need to build about 500,000 houses for London in the next ten years. Here, as elsewhere, the long-term problem is the provision of land. The Government's


initial plans were set out in the White Paper London—Employment: Housing: Land, Command 1952. The regional study for the South-East which will be published tomorrow is the next major step forward in that direction. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bermondsey will not expect me to anticipate that.
As I understand it, there is now no dispute about what is a reasonable target for new homes for London—between 50,000 and 60,000 a year. That is a possibility—indeed, I should say a strong possibility—if the right policies are followed. But we must accept that the most acute problems in London can be met only by making the best use of the existing stock of houses in London. This stock is insufficient to meet all the pressures which result not only from the demands of people in London but from all the movement into London which I think we must try to discourage to a large extent. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey said, we must attract people away from the areas of congestion.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey dealt, quite rightly, with the problem of homelessness. As he said, we have been involved in London government with many problem families. Sometimes people park themselves on the doorstep because they want to go to the top of the queue. But there are very many extremely hard cases. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is in constant touch with the London County Council and is well aware of the strenuous efforts which it has been making to grapple with this problem. I hope that hon. Members who were not present during the debate will read and study the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith). He stressed the need for co-operation between the local authorities and the housing associations, and the part which can be played by voluntary effort.
The more widespread problem is occasioned by the extent of bad and overcrowded dwellings in London and the need to make better use of existing accommodation. This was a matter to which the hon. Member for Willesden,

West (Mr. Pavitt) addressed himself very closely. We know of the difficulties about houses which do not have proper standards. But London, like the rest of the country, is now carrying out an increasing programme of improvement and modernisation within the Government's policies, and the proposals in the Housing Bill will enable the rate to be stepped up. Our aim over the country as a whole is to step up the rate towards 200,000 houses a year. There has been some suggestion that the construction industry is already too overloaded. I do not accept all these pessimistic views, but there is a limit to the rate at which this work can be carried out.
We have heard a great deal about rent control this afternoon. This is a problem predominantly again for London and some of the other big cities. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I said predominantly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] My right hon. Friend has dealt with this in detail. For the benefit of hon. Members who were not present earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Bermondsey referred to my right hon. Friend's statement that the Government will not propose any further block decontrol but will not interfere generally with creeping decontrol.
Experience has shown only too clearly that if rents are kept unreasonably low by control nothing comes on to the market to rent. It is true to say that the repeal of the Rent Act, 1957, would mean fewer and not more houses for rent. As the hon. Member for Bermondsey said, there is certainly a real need for more houses to let, and this will be met partly by the growing activities of the housing associations. [Interruption.] Twenty-five million pounds is already pledged.

Mr. Denis Howell: Nobody is building them.

Mr. Rippon: Certainly, the position would be better still but for the Socialist threats to repeal the Rent Act. [Interruption.] The incentive to developers to build houses to rent is not much improved by reason of the fact that the Labour Party no longer intends to try to peg rents. That was made clear by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech


at Leeds on 8th February, when he said categorically that
The Labour Government will repeal the 1957 Rent Act and replace it by a measure providing machinery for a fair settlement of rents as between landlord and tenant.
We would like to know a little more about this measure and the principles upon which the tribunals which are to be set up would operate.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) was quite right in saying that rent control is the wrong approach. There may be other ways in which we can help people in need—[Interruption.] Rent control is the wrong approach and——

Mr. Mellish: Then why not abolish it?

Mr. Rippon: —what we shall never forget is that the years of rent control were the prime cause of the present twilight areas in our cities.

Mr. Mellish: The Minister has said once again that rent control is the wrong approach and is evil. Why, then, do the Conservative Party not propose to do something about it if they are returned to power?

Mr. Rippon: One of our difficulties has been that rent control operated for so long that it wholly distorted the situation and created grave difficulties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] My right hon. Friend has dealt with the special conditions which have developed over the years. I have said that we will not have any more block decontrol, but creeping decontrol has moved much faster than anyone expected. Therefore, we are moving all the time towards decontrol, whereas the Opposition deliberately say that they would go back to the full rigours of rent control.
The only way in which we can provide better homes is not by imposing a new set of controls, as the Opposition want, but by building more new houses and improving the existing stock of houses. I do not want to deal again with the matters which we go over time after time in these debates. The Conservative record is a good one. Our achievements are well known. Under the Conservatives, one family in every four has moved into a new house. Over ½ million slums have been cleared since 1955.
We have now laid before the House detailed plans for even faster progress. The target of 350,000 houses for Great Britain will be reached this year, almost certainly comfortably passed, if we are as lucky as we have been so far in the clement weather. We will thereafter proceed as rapidly as possible to the 400,000 target. It has been made clear today—and we need not challenge the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) any more about it—that the Opposition now apparently accept the target of 400,000.

Mr. M. Stewart: We suggested it first.

Mr. Rippon: Indeed, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has made the same assertion that the Opposition mentioned that target first. They mentioned it as a desirable end but were rather slow to refer to it as a target. Last week the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East complained bitterly that the Conservative Government had taken over all the Opposition programmes. But, considering the difficulty they have had in making up their minds as to whether the Government were promising too little or too much, that is a bold assertion.
The hon. Member for Fulham, if I heard him aright, murmured something today about 450,000 houses a year. Is that to be claimed as the first statement of the Opposition's new target?

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman misheard me. He should withdraw.

Mr. Rippon: I gladly withdraw. I must have misheard the hon. Gentleman. But certainly the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East accepts that 400,000 houses a year is about right and that we should go forward on that basis.
The first difference between the two sides is that within the 400,000 target the Opposition, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey indicated, would seek to provide a higher proportion of local authority houses. It is not clear how many more. But whatever was done would certainly be at the expense of owner occupiers. I do not accept that people only buy their own homes because they cannot get houses to let.

Mr. Mellish: I did not claim that for the total.I said that many people are


compelled to pay high prices for houses because they cannot rent homes. Many would prefer to rent.

Mr. Rippon: There is a difference of opinion on that matter. Within the total of about 350,000 houses we envisage that this year there will be about 150,000 local authority houses. When talking about local authority housing we must have regard, as my right hon. Friend said, to the total pool of local authority housing available in the country and we have now reached the stage when 30 per cent. of the families of the country are in council houses.

Mr. Mellish: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Rippon: There is nothing wrong with it. I am merely pointing out that a very large pool of local authority housing is available and that there must come a limit to the need to expand that total over the country as a whole. We do not want to swell in any way council housing lists with those who would prefer to make their own arrangements, as many undoubtedly do.
We should also bear in mind that, since the local authorities which have the greatest problems are now driving ahead as rapidly as physical resources of staff and land will permit, there might well be, if we tried arbitrarily to increase the proportion of council houses, a slowing down of building. Alternatively, one would build council houses in areas where there was not the same great need.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey asked specifically about arrangements in relation to the purchase of pre-1919 houses. When we suspended the £100 million scheme it was nearly exhausted. A total of £96 million had been spent. We found that it had tended to put up the prices of older houses. If one makes easy financial facilities available, prices tend to rise. More important, we are now getting the improvements which were one of the conditions of the £100 million scheme and this process will be accelerated by the new Housing Bill with area improvements.
The House should also bear in mind, in considering owner occupation and the alleged difficulties of young people and others, that building society lending

rises each year. Last year it totalled £840 million.
The second and more fundamental difference between us is that the Opposition are apparently convinced that to succeed with their policy it will be necessary to hold back what they are apt to call less essential building and so reimpose physical controls. This has been implicit in many of their recent speeches and it was put directly by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) who shouted out, "What about luxury hotels?".
It should be clearly understood that there is no reason to suppose that the imposition of controls over what is called less essential building would do anything but harm. The facts of the position are that of the £3,100 million worth of construction work completed in 1963, 27 per cent. went on housing, and we would all accept that it is right that there should be that high proportion. 21 per cent. went on other new work for public authorities, roads and schools and the health services and power stations and the rest. 10 per cent. went on industrial building, and here again most hon. Members would agree that that is right and necessary; indeed, it was only in 1957 that the Leader of the Opposition was saying that though the Conservatives by building 300,000 houses a year had done something which was politically popular and socially desirable, nevertheless they had placed a great strain on our resources, because we ought to have been devoting more of our resoures to developing basic industries. Then there is 30 per cent. on maintenance, and most of us would agree that that is important and a vital part of our construction programme.
What is left? Four per cent. on offices, 2 per cent. on shops and 6 per cent. on churches and garages and the rest. Let us take all this hotch-potch of miscellaneous new work and say that here we will find a large amount of non-essential building. However, much of this will be accepted as essential. New housing estates need shops and offices and cinemas and even garages. New factories need offices. New motorways need cafes and even the Opposition are committed to the principle of the Offices Act. Perhaps there is half of that miscellaneous sector


which could be stopped if one was sufficiently ruthless, and that would not necessarily go to housing, because some of the capacity at present so occupied could not be redirected because it is carried out by specialist firms.
It must be accepted that if an absolute ban on so-called non-essential work were imposed, some system of licensing would have to be imposed by a Labour Government. This would require legislation and the setting up of machinery to consider applications and to issue licences. In addition, there would have to be some means of policing the operation of the scheme. All this would take time to set up and it would involve a lot of staff who could be more usefully employed elsewhere, and there would be great loss of output during the period of transition. In practice, since planning control already imposes limitations, there is only a small percentage of projects which might finally be found to be really non-essential, in which case the gain both to housing and schools would be negligible.
Similar arguments apply to the alleged overload on the industry. No system of licensing of this kind would bite for at least three years, and it would be impossible to redirect the production of specialist firms. The fact is that one cannot hope to serve the economy by holding down by controls the capital demands of private enterprise. This is an almost impossible task in a democracy. But it is doubly damaging in Britain, because it involves deciding who should supply whom with what in the private enterprise sector which is responsible for more than three-quarters of the output of the country and all its exports. All those decisions which the Opposition say they would make are bound to lead to arbitrary injustice and terrible inefficiency. There is only one way in which to step up the building of houses and the schools. That is by steadily increasing the capacity of the construction industry, and that is what is happening.
I do not think that I can rehearse all the arguments that were put forward during the important debate that we had yesterday. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Fulham, the hon. Member for Bermondsey, and most of his colleagues were not present on that

occasion.I agree with the view expressed thin by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) who said:
Tomorrow, on a three-line Whip, hon. Members will be lined up to debate housing, but what will we discuss? …
We will be arguing as if it were something that could be put in a shop, without labour, but the great matters that divide us, the arguments on the allocation of houses, Rachmanism, and the rest, must depend entirely on the production of houses. I cannot remember when we last had a full-scale debate on the production of houses …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1964; Vol. 691, c. 1284.]
It is not the Conservative Party's fault that the Opposition have put down the wrong Motion on the wrong day.

Mr. James Callaghan: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that anyone would have any objection to the right hon. Gentleman reading that quotation as a matter of fact, but is it in order to reproduce the speech of someone who is not a Minister from a debate of the, previous day?

Mr. Speaker: I think that some licence is usually allowed as to the limits within which we go. I did not think that they had reasonably been exceeded.

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Member for Leeds, West was speaking for the Opposition yesterday.
Assuming that the capacity of the construction industry limits the total amount of building that can be done, the Opposition's main contention is that their policies will reduce the price of land and building costs generally. They base their case on the assumption that a Labour Government would, first, have a lower Bank Rate, secondly, introduce differential interest rates, and thirdly, lower land prices. The hon. Member for Bermondsey said, as if it was something dreadful, that there had been 29 changes in interest rates over a period of time. But that is the whole object of the adjustment of interest rates. It is action which can be taken in a timely fashion, and the essence of its use is that this step is taken when there are pressures on the economy from either internal or external sources.
No one doubts that a low Bank Rate is preferable to a high one, but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has explained,


this question of the Bank Rate and interest rates has not in any way inhibited local authorities from going ahead with their programmes.

Mr. Walter Monslow: On a point of order. Can some attention be given to the right hon. Gentleman who seems to be suffering from some pathological trouble?

Mr. Speaker: As far as I know, pathological troubles raise no point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Rippon: I should have thought that pathological troubles were confined to the party opposite. The Leader of the Opposition has said himself:
Though we have complained of the Government's over-reliance on bank rate and the credit squeeze we should not hesitate to use monetary controls ruthlessly if necessary as one in an armoury of weapons",
and the armoury of weapons inevitably includes building controls. No doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite now recognise that the deliberate cheap-money policy of the Labour Government between 1945 and 1951 resulted in wiping out half the savings of all the people who put their trust in the Government. It pushed up prices in the most inflationary period in our history and contributed to the devaluation of the pound. Now we are apparently being asked what we can do to insulate the Cardiff City Council from measures to protect sterling. None of us can opt out of this.
As I understand from the hon. Member for Bermondsey the Opposition have in mind a specially low rate of interest for such services as housing and education—the two examples given by the hon. Member for Fulham. That would mean that one-third of the total investment in construction would enjoy a specially low rate of interest—and no doubt there would be other claims. It would be a hidden subsidy, in addition to the present overt subsidies which are openly reviewed from time to time. 
Let there be no mistake about what is meant by the Opposition's saying that they will ensure that cheap loans are made available for housing. If it means that they will keep interest rates down below the prevailing level, higher taxes will result, and prices will rise. If we have 100 per cent. mortgages and

specially low rates of interest the prices of houses will rocket enormously. All this will be an additional public subsidy, attracting additional taxation in order to make up the difference between the rate at which the Government borrow, and the lower rate at which they lend.
The one consistent aim of the party opposite is to persuade the British electorate to think that they can have houses and other things without paying the proper price for them.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what interest rate the Government pay the Bank of England when the Bank of England lends them money?

Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not going to be drawn over that one. The real point is that cheap money is the favourite loss leader of the Labour Party. Woe betide the nation if it is diverted into falling for any of the bargains that it will find in the Wilson and Callaghan emporium.
The other way in which the Opposition claim that they can reduce housing costs is by reducing the price of land. They have various proposals for doing this, and the House should probe them carefully. As the hon. Member for Bermondsey said, there can be no doubt that the availability and acquisition of land are matters of great relevance to housing and other building. There is no doubt that land is expensive, especially when it is scarce. Our policy is to ensure that more land is released both for public and for private development.
The Opposition claim that we can provide sufficient housing and other building only if we adopt their concept of a land commission. Basically, this body would nationalise all land for which planning permission was sought for development or redevelopment. The only exemptions, according to the hon. Member for Fulham, would be minor developments such as the building of a garage, or the building of a house by a person for himself, on his own land. But such cases are the exception rather than the rule.
I would like the House briefly to consider a specific case that might arise. Let us suppose that Mr. Smith, who lives


in a twilight area in Greater London, in an old Victorian house with a large garden, is about to retire, and is thinking of selling his property for redevelopment as houses or offices. At present, all that he has to do is to put in an application for planning permission. This may be granted, after a public inquiry, and he can then sell at the market value. But with the land commission he will first have to consider whether he wants to sell it at all, and what he will get for it. This will be the existing land value plus something for the insult; we do not know what. Let us say that he puts in his application and that it is granted, The commission then says, "We are going to nationalise your land for such, and-such a price"—and this will presumably be determined at another public inquiry. The land commission will then lease it to the developer. If the planning permission is for offices the lease will presumably be on a commercial basis, whereas if it is for housing or some other socially approved purpose, we are told that the Opposition will not strike a purely commercial bargain.
That means special treatment for some developers and therefore a system of allocation among them all. It involves the discriminatory treatment of lessees. If the land is for housing development and is sold to Mr. Jones—[HON. MEMBERS: "Mr. Smith."]because the price of land is below the market price, one would control the price of the house, and so presumably the price of the house if Mr. Jones sells—[HON. MEMBERS: "Mr. Smith."] Mr. Smith has gone to the South Coast. When Mr. Jones wishes to move, he will have to have the price at which he assigned his lease assessed again by the Land Commission, in case he should make a profit. If he moves, he may want to move into a house owned by Mr. Robinson, and before Mr. Robinson can sell his house he too will have to have the cost assessed by the Land Commission.

What a senseless proposal. What a travesty of owner-occupation. The whole scheme is so grotesque that if it did not come from the official Opposition it would only merit a fourth leader in The Times.
What the Opposition's proposals amount to is this: first restrict the price of land; then distort demand; then have C.P.O.s on a massive scale; then have disputes over compensation; control the allocation of land; control the price of development on assignment, and, finally, impose a bar on redevelopment, the penalty for which would be forfeiture of lease with more haggling over compensation. What an economic miracle of paralysis and confusion.
The Opposition cannot break away from the fallacy that in some magical way we can provide better housing by returning to the full rigours of rent control, by juggling with interest rates and by the introduction of land nationalisation on what the country must understand would be a massive scale. The Opposition have produced this Land Commission all because a relatively small number of people receive high prices in a free market—prices which purchasers are prepared to pay and on which the vendor pays tax in many forms. For the rest, all the Opposition can say is, "Anything you can do we can do better"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The record shows that they have never done better, and this debate demonstrates that they never will do better. Their arguments, and indeed their policies, ought to be dismissed as irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent, and the House should reject the Motion and adopt the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided:Ayes 228. Noes 297.

Division No. 50.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Blyton, William


Ainsley, William
Beaney, Alan
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.


Albu, Austen
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E>)
Bence, Cyril
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Bowles, Frank


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Boyden, James


Bacon, Miss Alice
Benson, Sir George
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Barnett, Guy
Blackburn, F.
Bradley, Tom




Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hoy, James H.
Pentland, Norman


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Popptewell, Ernest


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Prentice, R. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, c.)
Hunter, A. E.
Probert, Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Proctor, W. T.


Callaghan, James
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Carmichael, Nell
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Randall, Harry


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rankin, John


Chapman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cliffe, Michael
Jeger, George
Reid, William


Collick, Percy
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Reynolds, G. W.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rhodes, H.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A, Creech (Wakefield)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cronin, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robinson, John (Paisley)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robinson Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Darling, George
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Rose, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, Clifford
Strinwell, Rt. Hon. E,


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
King, Dr. Horace
Silkin, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, George
Silverman, Julius (Astan)


Deer, George
Ledger, Ron
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Skeffington, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Dodds, Norman
Lever, L. M. (Ardwtok)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Small, William


Donnelly, Desmond
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Driberg, Tom
Lubbock, Eric
Sorensen, R. W.


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McBride, N.
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McCann, John
Steele, Thomas


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
MacDermot, Niall
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Evans, Albert
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stonehouse, John


Finch, Harold
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Fitch, Alan
McLeavy, Frank
Stross, SirBarnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Fletcher, Eric
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Swain, Thomas


Foley, Maurice
MacPherson, Malcolm
Swingler, Stephen


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Symonds, J. B.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taverne, D.


Forman, J. C.
Manuel, Archie
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mapp, Charles
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marsh, Richard
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mellish, R. J.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Ginsburg, David
Menderison, J. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Millan, Bruce
Thorpe, Jeremy


Courlay, Harry
Milne, Edward
Tomney, Frank


Grey, Charles
Mitchison, G. R.
Wade, Donald


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Monslow, Walter
WainWright, Edwin


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moody, A. S.
Warbey, William


Griffiths, W, (Exchange)
Moms, Charles (Opertshaw)
Watkins, Tudor


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Weitzman, David


Cunter, Ray
Moyle, Arthur
Wells, William (Walsall, M.)


Halo, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mulley, Frederick
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Neal, Harold
Whitlock, William


Hannan, William
Noel-Baiter, Francis (Swindon)
Wigg, George


Harper, Joseph
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn, Philip (Derby, S.)
Willey, Frederick


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hayman, F. H.
O'Malley, B. K.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)




Herbison, Miss Margaret
Oram, A. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oswald, Thomas
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hilton, A. V.
Padley, W. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Holman, Percy
Paget, R. T.
Woof, Robert


Holt, Arthur
Pargiter, G. A.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hooson, H. E.
Parker, John
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Houghton, Douglas
Parkin, B. T.



Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Pavitt, Laurence
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Mr. Redhead and Mr. Rogers.


Howie, W.
Peart, Frederick





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Batsford, Brian
Black, Sir Cyril


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tutton
Bossom, Hon. Clive


Alfason, James
Bell, Ronald
Bourne, Arton, A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Box, Donald


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Berkeley, Humphry
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward


Atkins, Humphrey
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Braine, Bernard


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Biffen, John
Brewis, John


Balniel, Lord
Bingham, R. M.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Birch, Bt. Hon. Nigel
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Barlow, Sir John
Bishop, Sir Patrick
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)







Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bryan, Paul
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Buck, Antony
Hocking, Philip N.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Bullard, Denys
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Partridge, E.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Holland, Philip
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Burden, F. A.
Hollingworth, John
Peel, John


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hopkins, Alan
Percival, Ian


Campbell, Gordon
Hornby, R. P.
Peyton, John


Cary, Sir Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Channon, H. P. G.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pitman, Sir James


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pounder, Rafton


Cole, Norman
Hughes-Young, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Cooke, Robert
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooper, A. E.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Price, H. A. (Lewisham W.)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.


Cordeaux, Lt.-col. J. K.
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Corfield, F. V.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Coulson, Michael
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jennings, J. C.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter


Craddook, Sir Beresford (Speithorne)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Curran, Charles
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Ridsdale, Julian


Currie, G. B. H.
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Dance, James
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.



d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Roots, William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kershaw, Anthony
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Donaldson, cmdr. C. E. M,
Kimball, Marcus
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Drayson, G. B.
Kirk, Peter
Russell, Sir Ronald


du Cann, Edward
Kitson, Timothy
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Duncan, Sir James
Lagden, Godfrey
Scott-Hopkins, James


Duthie, Sir William (Banff)
Lambton, Viscount
Seymour, Leslie


Eden, Sir John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sharples, Richard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, M.


Elliott, R.W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, William


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lilley, P. J. P.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Errington, Sir Eric
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Farr, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fisher, Nigel
Longbottom, Charles
Speir, Rupert


Fletcher-Cootie, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Stainton, Keith


Fraser, Rt.Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Loveys, Walter H.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Stevens, Geoffrey


Freeth, Denzil
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stodart, J. A.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Gammans, Lady
MacArthur, Ian
Storey, Sir Samuel


Gardner, Edward
McLaren, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Gibson-Watt, David
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Tapsell, Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, M.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Teeling, Sir William


Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Goodhart, Philip
Maginnis, John E.
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Gough, Frederick
Maitland, Sir John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Gower, Raymond
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Green, Alan
Marlowe, Anthony
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Mathew, Robert (Hotiliton)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Harris, Frederio (Croydon, N.W.)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mawby, Ray
Turner, Colin


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Mills, Stratton
Vane, W. M. F.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Montgomery, Fergus
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hastings, Stephen
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walder, David


Hay, John
Morgan, William
Walker, Peter


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Morrison, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wall, Patrick


Henderson, John (Cathoart)
Neave, Airey
Ward, Dame Irene


Hendry, Forbes
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Webster, David


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Nugent, Rt. Hen. Sir Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hiley, Joseph
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Whitelaw, William


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)







Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Woodhouse, C. M.



Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Woodnutt, Mark
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wise, A. R.
Woollam, John
Mr. Chichester-Clark and Mr. Finlay.


Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Worsley, Marcus



Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 228.

Division No. 51.]
AYES
[10.12 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Elliott, R. W. (Hewe'lle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Halt Green)


Allason, James
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Errington, Sir Eric
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Farr, John
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Atkins, Humphrey
Fell, Anthony
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Fisher, Nigel
Kershaw, Anthony


Balniel, Lord
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kimball, Marcus


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(Stafford &amp; Stone)
Kirk, Peter


Barlow, Sir John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kitson, Timothy


Batsford, Brian
Freeth, Denzil
Lagden, Godfrey


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lambton, Viscount


Bel1, Ronald
Gammam, Lady
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Gardner, Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Gibson-Watt, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Berkeley, Humphry
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Lilley, F. J. P.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Biffen, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Litchfield, Capt. John


Bingham, R. M.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.
Longbottom, Charles


Black, Sir Cyril
Goodhart, Philip
Longden, Gilbert


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Gough, Frederick
Loveys, Walter H.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gower, Raymond
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Box, Donald
Green, Alan
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Gresham Cooke, R.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Boyle, Rt. Hon, Sir Edward
Grosvenor, Lord Robert
MacArthur, Ian


Braine, Bernard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McLaren, Martin


Brewis, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bryan, Paul
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Buck, Antony
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maddan, Martin


Bullard, Denys
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maginnis, John E.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hastings, Stephen
Maitland, Sir John


Burden, F. A.
Hay, John
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marlowe, Anthony


Campbell, Gordon
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Cary, Sir Robert
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Channon, H, P. G.
Hendry, Forbes
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hiley, Joseph
Maudlins, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Cole, Norman
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Mawby, Ray


Cooke, Robert
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cooper, A. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mills, Stratton


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hocking, Philip N.
Miscampbell, Norman


Corfield, F. V.
Hogg, Rt, Hon. Quintin
Montgomery, Fergus


Costain, A. P.
Holland, Philip
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Coulson, Michael
Hollingworth, John
Morgan, William


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hopkins, Alan
Morrison, John


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hornby, H. P.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Neave, Airey


Crowder, F. P.
Howard, Hon. G. n. (St. Ives)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Curran, Charles
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Currie, G. B. H.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Dance, James
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Page, Graham (Crosby)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Iremonger, T. L..
Pannelt, Norman (Kirkdale)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Partridge, E.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
James, David
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Drayson, G. B.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Peel, John


du Cann, Edward
Jennings, J. C.
Percival, Ian


Duncan, Sir James
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Peyton, John


Duncun, Sir William (Banff)
Johnson, Eric (Blacldey)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Eden, Sir John
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pitman, Sir James




Pitt, Dame Edith
Skeet, T. H. H.
Turner, Colin


Pounder Rafton
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Vane, W. M. F.


Price, H. A. (Lewisham, w.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Prior, J. M. L.
Speir, Rupert
Vickers, Miss Joan


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Stainton. Keith
Walder, David


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Walker, Peter


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James
Stodart, J. A.
Wall, Patrick


Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Ward, Dame Irene


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Storey, Sir Samuel
Webster, David


Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Studholme, sir Henry
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Renton, R(. Hon. David
Summers, Sir Spencer
Whitelaw, William


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Tapsell, Peter
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Rodgers, John (Seveno[...])
Teeling, sir William
Wise, A. R.


Roots, William
Temple, John M.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Russell, Sir Ronald
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Woodnutt, Mark


Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon S.)
Woollam, John


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Seymour, Leslie
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Sharples, Richard
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)



Shaw, M,
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shepherd, William
Touche, Rt. Hon, Sir Gordon
Mr. Chichester-Clark and Mr. Finlay




NOES


Abse, Leo
Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Ainsley, William
Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Albu, Austen
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Evans, Albert
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Baoon, Miss Alice
Finch, Harold
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Barnett, Guy
Fitch, Alan
Kelley, Richard


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Fletcher, Eric
Kenyon, Clifford


Beaney, Alan
Foley, Maurice
King, Dr. Horace


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Lawson, George


Bence, Cyril
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Ledger, Ron


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Forman, J. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Benson, Sir George
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Blackburn, F.
George, LadyMeganL1oyd(Cr[...]rthn)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Blyton, William
Ginsburg, David
Lipton, Marcus


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lubbock, Eric


Bowden, Rt. Hn H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Gourlay, Harry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Grey, Charles
McBride, N.


Bowles, Frank
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McCann, John


Boyden, James
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacDermot, Niall


Braddock, Mrs. E. M,
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bradley, Tom
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gunter, Ray
McLeavy, Frank


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hannan, William
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Manuel, Archie


Callaghan, James
Hayman, F. H.
Mapp, Charles


Carmichael, Neil
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Marsh, Richard


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mellish, R. J.


Chapman, Donald
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mendelson, J. J.


Cliffe, Michael
Hilton, A. V.
Millan, Bruce


Collick, Percy
Holman, Percy
Milne, Edward


Corbet, Mrs, Freda
Holt, Arthur
Mitchison, G. R.


Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)
Hooson, H. E.
Monslow, Walter


Cronin, John
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Moody, A. S.


Crosland, Anthony
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Cullen, Mrs, Alice
Howle, W.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Darling, George
Hoy, James H.
Moyle, Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mulley, Frederick


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Neal, Harold


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, H.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hunter, A. E.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Deer, George
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oliver, G. H.


Delargy, Hugh
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
O'Malley, B. K.


Dempsey, James
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oram, A. E.


Dodds, Norman
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Oswald, Thomas


Doig, Peter
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Padley, W. E.


Donnelly. Desmond
Jeger, George
Paget, R. T,







Pargiter, G. A.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thornton, Ernest


Parker, John
Silkin, John
Thorpe, Jeremy


Parkin, B. T.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Tomney, Frank


Pavitt, Laurence
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wade, Donald


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Skeffington, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin


Peart, Fredrick
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Warbey, William


Pentland, Norman
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Watkins, Tuder


Popplewell, Ernest
Small, William
Weitzman, David


Prentice, R. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Sorensen, R. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Probert, Arthur
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Whitlook, William


Proctor, W. T.
Spriggs, Leslie
Wigg, George


Purser, Cmdr, Harry
Steele, Thomas
Willey, Frederick


Randall, Harry
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rankin, John
Stonehouse, John
Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Reid, William
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Winterbottom, R. E,


Reynolds, G. W.
Swain, Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Rhodet, H.
Swingler, Stephen
Woof, Robert


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Symonds, J. B.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Roberts, Goronwy (Caemarvon)
Taverne, D
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)



Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rodgers, W, T. (Stockton)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Mr. Redhead and Mr. Rogers


Ross, William
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the growing housing demands of a rising and increasingly prosperous population, welcomes the prospect of completing 350,000 new dwellings this year and the Government's further target of 400,000 new dwellings a year; supports the accelerating programmes of slum clearance and modernisation of houses, welcomes the rapid growth of owner-occupation and believes that the Government's policy of increasing both the supply of land—within regional plans —and the supply of houses represents the best and quickest way of satisfying the housing needs of the country and of restraining the levels of prices and rents.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE

Resolved,
That the Postmaster-General be authorised, as provided for in section 5 of the Post Office Act 1961, to make payments out of the Post Office Fund in the financial year ending with the 31st March, 1965.—[Mr. Mawby.]

Orders of the Day — COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL (SALARY)

Resolution reported,
That the rate of the salary which may be granted to the Comptroller and Auditor General under Section 1 of the Exchequer

and Audit Departments Act 1957 be increased from seven thousand pounds to eight thousand two hundred and eighty-five pounds per annum, and the date from which, under subsection (3) of that section, the person now holding that Office is entitled to a salary at the said increased rate be the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixty-three.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

[17th March]

MERCHANT SHIPPING

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable into the Exchequer under the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act 1949 which is attributable to any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to an International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea signed in London on 17th June, 1960.

Resolution read a Second time.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — OPTICIANS (RULES ON PUBLICITY)

10.24 p. m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the General Optical Council (Rules on Publicity) Order of Council 1964 (S.I., 1964, No. 167), dated 6th February, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th February, be annulled.
It is with some regret that I move this Prayer because we all hope that the General Optical Council, in its very difficult work, will be able to discharge the obligation imposed upon it by Parliament. Nevertheless, it is a matter of considerable concern not only to Members of Parliament but to the public generally and, for that matter, to some doctors that the rules which we are presently discussing are drawn as tightly as they are.
I preface my remarks by pointing out that, with the natural evolution of our democracy, we have seen more and more Statutory Instruments flowing from the Privy Council authorised by Parliament in this form of delegated legislation, a flow which has at times meant that it has been very difficult to examine Instruments properly. When hon. and right hon. Members opposite were in Opposition, they made great play of this development. Hon. Members who were in the House before 1951 will have observed that, in the years of the Labour Government, according to a report in The Times on 16th March, 8,500 new Statutory Rules and Orders were made, yet in the last five years we have had to consider 12,386. Apparently, it is beyond the wit of the great critics of Statutory Instruments, namely, the Tory Party now in Government, to stop this immense flow. This is why it is extremely important that Ministers should scrutinise Rules and Orders all the more closely. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentlemen who form the Privy Council for this purpose undertook the full scrutiny of these rules which they merit.
In the short time at our disposal, I cannot refer to all the objections which I should like to raise, but I wish to draw attention first to a regrettable practice in which the General Optical Council is in-

dulging and which ought to be corrected at once. I refer not so much to the rules themselves as to a document published by the General Optical Council which, I believe, has no merit in law but which is alleged to contain interpretations of the rules now before us. I cannot understand how a statutory body created by Parliament can have the right to issue a booklet of interpretations which, with the best will in the world, can only be read in some cases as being in direct contradiction of the rules themselves.
It must not be forgotten that, under the Opticians Act, 1958, a breach of the rules may mean that an optician is penalised by being struck off the Register. Plainly, this is a very serious matter and it is not just an argument about marginal meanings. To the practitioner, it may be a very serious matter because his livelihood depends upon his name being on the Register. Therefore, as I say, I cannot accept any suggestion that these are marginal interpretations. I shall in due course refer to a specific example in respect of which the General Optical Council in its booklet of interpretations seems to be contradicting the very rules promulgated in this Order.
The next criticism which I and many doctors have relates to Rule 7. This deals with reminders. Some of us, and many opticians, regard this as an interference in what might be termed the optician-patient relationship. Rule 7 lays down in rather restrictive fashion the number of times that an optician may communicate with a patient. The Rules are designed to curb what might be considered unprofessional publicity by opticians, but they bring into question here how often an optician may write to a patient.
This is an important matter. The person concerned is not a member of the public but a specific patient, someone who has been to the optician and has had the benefit of his professional services. After having given his services and having noted down whatever defect there may be, the optician may wish, on reviewing his notes later, to communicate with the patient and suggest that the patient ought to come for a review. In Rule 7(a) and (b) are laid down two important conditions about how often and in what discretionary space of time


an optician may communicate with the patients. I think that this is unduly restrictive.
I call in support of this opinion two worthy views which must appeal to the Minister. The Standing Medical Advisory Committee of the Central Health Services Council, in September, 1962, issued a pamphlet, called, "Prevention and alleviation of blindness" in which it emphasised, inter alia, the need for careful watch of early symptoms of glaucoma by all concerned in the health services. Any attempt, therefore, by these rules to prevent the optician from having an absolute right to remind his patient that he ought to come for a check is, I think I can say without extravagance, an unwarranted invasion of the rights of that optician. There is another example I can give, this time from the Porritt Report. In its "Review of the Medical Services in Great Britain" attention was drawn to the need for earlier recognition of ocular disease. We know that ophthalmic opticians are a very important part of the ancillary medical services in this country. They are not only concerned with dispensing proper lenses to ensure correction of sight, but they are, after examination, able to recommend a patient to a doctor or ophthalmologist if necessary for further examination. There may be some basic constitutional disease of which an eye defect itself is only the presenting symptom.
Therefore, we are concerned with a very serious matter here when we come to the question of the opticians' work and the desire of an optician to bring back a patient for further review and a further check. I feel that the Minister, in replying, perhaps, on behalf of the Privy Council or on behalf of his own Ministry, ought to be very concerned about this. I really think it a bit undesirable that we should have in the various paragraphs of Rule 7 such restrictive provisions.
For example, an optician, in writing to his patient, is obliged to say nothing but what is stated in the rule. I, as a doctor, have some experience of writing to patients to call them back for review, and one of the rules in medical practice is never to alarm a patient unnecessarily. A doctor must always expect the worst, while hoping for the best, but he

must always give the patient the impression that the best is to be expected. Therefore, letters of reminder cannot be cold; they must be warm. They cannot be unsympathetic; they have got to be sympathetic. And they must not be alarming. I think Rule 7(f) here is aseptic to the point of danger when it says that the reminder must say:
This is to remind you that if your eyes have not been examined since you consulted me"—
on such and such a date—
a further examination is advisable.
If the patient is a hypochondriac, or only a bit alarmed about his health, or if perhaps he has had indicated to him somehow that his eyes are not so good, that could sound like something very sinister, and such a bald warning would be taken as a cause of alarm. That would be distressing. On the other hand, I think also that in some circumstances a reminder phrased in such a non-committal way might be carelessly disregarded by the patient. That, perhaps, would be a greater danger.
Altogether, I think it is wrong, quite wrong, for the Council to go so far as to lay down what an optician shall say to his patient in reminding him, in the patient's own interests, to come to be re-examined. Therefore I insist—and I hope some of my hon. Friends will support me—that there is a considerable objection on medical grounds to the way in which Rule 7 has been framed.
I should like to refer to Rule 8, which is allied to this, but time does not permit me to deal with that at this moment, and I pass on, then, to another matter which is not really a criticism on medical grounds but rather a criticism on grounds of consumer interest. This concerns Rule 14. It can be argued—I have heard it argued recently by opticians—that the presence of Rule 14 in this Order is outwith the rights conferred by the Council and by Parliament in Section 25(1) and (2) of the Opticians Act, 1958. However, it is not my purpose tonight to argue the constitutional invalidity of Rule 14. I will concentrate on what appear to be the contradictions.
May I say in parenthesis that if these rules seem to be in contradiction to Sections of an Act of Parliament, it is the duty of members of the Privy Council


and of Ministers to see that the ideas and intentions of Parliament are carried out by the Privy Council and Ministers and not the intentions of the General Optical Council, well meaning though they may be.
Rule 14 concerns the pricing of articles. It is specifically laid down in Section 21 of the Opticians Act, 1958, that the matter of pricing of articles applies only to optical appliances. Here we come into the strange realm of discussing what is an optical appliance. Does an "optical appliance" refer only to the lenses in our spectacles, or does it include also the frames which carry the lenses? The Act says:
'optical appliance' means an appliance designed to correct, remedy or relieve a defect of sight.
This is very important. If an optician prescribes certain lenses which are in line with those recommended by the National Health Service Regulations, and can fit certain spectacle frames outwith the National Health Service list, then that optician can give the patient an examination service and a dispensing service within the National Health Service and can also add a private service—namely, the provision of frames not approved by the National Health Service, but nevertheless available in his own premises.
This raises a very interesting point because these rules forbid the advertisement of the price of these frames. They concede that the assistants on the optician's premises are allowed, in handling these frames, to see a small tag or indication, available to them only, of what the price is, but the idea that it should be open to the public to see what is the price of one frame as against the price of another frame is forbidden. This is quite wrong. After all, spectacle frames are to some degree a cosmetic choice. Some of us prefer this frame to that frame. Some prefer one design to another. Nevertheless, this is a matter of taste rather than a matter of optical necessity.
I concede the point that the work of ophthalmic opticians in particular should be regarded as a profession so far as examining and dispensing for patients is concerned. But there is a very narrow and important line to be drawn between these activities and their activities when they are acting as vendors of spectacle frames. We shall be engaged next week

in discussing a Bill which concerns restrictive practices in certain trades. The question may arise, are there restrictive practices in the provision of spectacle frames? Some of us who have gone into this matter a little more deeply than perhaps hon. Members usually do without having it specifically drawn to their attention, are surprised to find that there are such variations in the prices of frames in different parts of the country, and we are surprised that this is allowed to continue without any public comment being made. I emphasise to the Parliamentary Secretary that he and his right hon. Friends must. take notice of this.
The Ministry of Health provides a certain choice of spectacle frames. I have here the relevant part of the regulations concerning Scotland. I have not been able to examine the English position, but I am told that it is practically the same. In the substantive lists there is a section dealing with frames other than children's standard frames, and five kinds of frames, and only five, are named as prescribable under the National Health Service for which the optician gets a recognised payment by the patient and a recognised payment by the Service.
I concede that within the five categoreis there are variants, and there may be—I have not counted them all—nearly two score of different choices. Nevertheless, it could be argued from Rule 14 that an optician does not have the right to display the official notice "National Health Service—Supply of Glasses" which we should see in every N.H.S. optician's establishment. Opticians are bound to exhibit the notice so that any patient who is being examined within the Health Service for an eye defect, and is getting Health Service, lenses dispensed to him by the optician and also getting Health Service spectacles within the regulation, is able to see from that notice, displayed on the advice of the Government, what he is supposed to pay for the category of spectacles chosen, just as the optician also knows what he gets from the State in subsidy on the spectacles. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to comment on that. Does he see that it could be interpreted so that the Government's own official display notice might be one of the first victims if these rules were strictly applied, particularly Rule 14?
I return to my first point about the unfortunate practice which the General Optical Council has adopted of issuing rulings about the rules before the rules have been approved by Parliament. I will not go into the impropriety of this; I only hope that my remarks may be drawn to the attention of the members of the Council. I trust that I may have the support of my hon. Friends and even of the Minister in saying that it is a most undesirable practice for any statutory council to comment on rules which have not been approved by Parliament.
I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to page 6 of the booklet, and in particular to part of paragraph 2, which talks about the scope of the rules. The Council says:
The Council would not regard the rules as applying to the normal use of the name and price of articles such as spectacle cases or polishing cloths supplied by registered opticians or enrolled bodies corporate.
If one reads that in conjunction with the rules, particularly Rule 14, and the Act, one cannot see how the Council has any legal right to say it. Yet I would say that it is a very good defence for any optician coming before the Council to say that the note of advice was his guide in his practice, and, therefore, no one can complain that he is unfairly competing commercially with other opticians, which, as I understand it, is the whole purpose of Rule 14.
Those of us who have read these rules, while accepting that the Council has a job to do and that we want to see it doing it well, feel that perhaps it has approached this in a rather grandmotherly way and that the consequence of its over-exactness and of trying to take optical practice completely within the realm of professional behaviour ignores the fact that optical practice also involves a certain amount of commercial activity. We feel that the Council has presented us with rules which are, in some ways, self-contradictory, in other ways undesirable, which act against the consumer and which, at some time, might even be a danger to the proper and good practice of opticians.

10.46 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: I am a member of the General Optical Council which the hon. Member for

Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) has been castigating to some extent. I was very interested in what he said but a little puzzled. He is, of course, entitled, as anyone else is, to object to the rules but I wonder whether he is doing it on his own behalf only or on behalf of any members or numbers of the optical profession. He did not mention that point.
These rules have been approved by the Council and are accepted in that way by the optical profession as a whole, certainly the ophthalmic opticians as represented by the Joint Committee of Ophthalmic Opticians, which consists of representatives of every organisation of ophthalmic opticians in the country, including Scotland.
Rule 7 does not differ very greatly from the rule already voluntarily accepted by members of the optical profession and operated by them for some considerable time. Indeed, there is one slight relaxation which was previously not allowed. Under the old arrangement with the Ministry of Health, only one reminder card was allowed for any N.H.S. optician. Rule 7 makes a relaxation in that, in exceptional circumstances, which are to be left to the judgment of the optician, he can send a second reminder. That is surely a slight improvement.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: The hon. Member asked for whom my hon. Friend was speaking. I am sure that the hon. Member is aware that there have been a number of representations on behalf of members of the optical profession. For example, I have here a telegram received today saying that the Birmingham branches of the Association of Optical Practitioners and the Birmingham Local Optical Committee, with the support of many other opticians in the Midlands, hope that the Prayer will succeed. So, undoubtedly, members of the profession take the same view as my hon. Friend.

Sir R. Russell: I am glad the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) brought that point out.
Rule 14 concerns prices. I am told that it is quite impossible to put a definite price on an optical appliance—a pair of spectacles for example—in a window, because it depends, first, on the type of frame, secondly, on the facial


measurements and, thirdly, on the prescription of the lenses. Prices may vary according to these conditions, and to state a price might therefore be misleading. I gather that that is the main reason why this rule recommends that no prices should be shown.
The General Optical Council consists of ophthalmic opticians dispensing opticians, ophthalmologists, medical practitioners, some educational experts and five lay members, of whom I happen to be one. I can say that very careful consideration was given to these rules and that any representations made by opticians or optical bodies before the rules were passed by the General Optical Council, containing all these different representatives, were carefully considered. As they have been accepted by the optical representatives on the Council, I hope that they will be allowed to proceed and that the Motion will not be passed.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I was very interested to hear the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) say that he was a member of the General Optical Council and I am sure that his comments have helped us to know what the Council had in mind. When I associated myself with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) in this Prayer, my approach were merely that of the consumer. I was interested, therefore, in the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) and I must confess that what he said came as a surprise to me. An hour ago I received what must be a similar telegram saying:
The Birmingham branches of the Association of Optical Practitioners and Birmingham Local Optical Committee together with the support of many other opticians in the Midlands and throughout the country hope that the Prayer to annul Statutory Instrument Number 167 will succeed in so removing the onerous restrictions on professional liberty and preserving the rights to which the optical profession on its record is entitled. Signed on this behalf …
There follows a complete sheet of names, 17 in all.
I had approached the matter from the opposite angle, that of the consumer. Suddenly to have this support from opticians, coupled with the eloquent and

forceful comments of my hon. Friend the Member. for Greenock, convinces me even more than before that we were right to move the Prayer and to probe into this matter.
Most of us accept the right of professional organisations to try to preserve their professional status. It is part of the way in which they maintain their high standards of conduct. When I first saw the Statutory Instrument, I accepted that it was the right of the Council to try to do its duty towards its members. But, in the same way that the Council has a duty to its 6 000 or so members, there is a duty somewhere to protect the millions of people who are their customers and who go to them for attention to their eyes and to receive spectacles.
Like my hon. Friend, I much regret this negative procedure which means that we have to pray against something rather than have the opportunity to discuss and shape and alter it to the satisfaction of everyone, including hon. Members and the Council.
My main concern is with the two rules my hon. Friend mentioned and especially with Rule 14. The Ministry of Health's Report for 1963 shows that of the total number of lenses dispensed, 33·7 per cent., or one out of three, were for National Health Service frames. That means that two out of three people chose private frames. Those figures mean that we are not dealing with a few people. or with a small amount of money.
The same Report shows that 4½ million people were supplied with spectacles, which means that 3 million people paid for what my hon. Friend described as the cosmetic value of the frames in which the lenses were fitted.
Rule 14 says:
Optical appliances and parts thereof which are displayed"—
I take it that that means displayed in the consulting rooms of the ophthalmic or dispensing optician—
… may be accompanied by descriptive matter, provided no statement of prices is displayed.
That seems a terrifically restrictive practice. It does not seem right that when somebody is trying to decide which frames to have he has no idea of the price involved. I know of no other sphere in which one has freedom of choice, but has no idea of the prices involved.
The hon. Member for Wembley, South has been helpful in saying that there is no fixed price because there are so many variables. That alarms me even more, because it means that an optician who is not an honourable man can price his customers instead of pricing his frames. He can say, "This chap is good for £10. That chap is good for £3". The variations to which the hon. Gentleman referred will permit him to charge different people different amounts for similar articles. It could lead to an enormous amount of swingeing over-charging when a person goes to buy a pair of spectacles.
A person who has to wear spectacles should be able to make his choice after seeing what is available in a number of consulting rooms. He should be able to see what is available for 3 guineas, what is available for 4 guineas, what is available for 5 guineas, and so on. He should be able to visit a number of opticians to see whether a certain type of spectacle is being sold at a cheaper price in one shop than in another.
It may seem strange that I, as a Co-operative Member, am asking for competition between opticians. If an optician is efficient, and is able to keep down his overheads, it should be possible for him to sell his goods at lower prices than they are sold by his competitors. I see no reason why he should not pass on this saving to his customers. I do not want to refer to the "Smiths", the "Browns" and the "Robinsons" who are opticians, and get into difficulty as the previous Minister did at the end of the housing debate. If optician "A" is more efficient than optician "B", I do not see why the former should be prevented from passing on to his customers the savings that he makes by his efficiency.
I wonder whether the rules laid down by the G.O.C. go much further than was envisaged when the 1958 Act was put on the Statute Book. Section 21(1) of that Act, although controlling "the optical appliance" did not apply to parts, and I take that to mean spectacle frames. The rules, however, apply to parts, so it seems that there is a difference between the Act and the way in which the Act is being interpreted under the rules.
Section 25(2) of the Act gave no power to the G.O.C. to prohibit display, but surely display for the purpose of business should include the right to exhibit prices? But that is not clear in Rule No. 14.
I do not want to go too far, because my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock has thoroughly covered the points arising from Rule No. 7, and the reminders that may be needed as between the professional optician and his client in order to make sure that testing has been kept up to date. The two medical reports quoted by my hon. Friend have given concern to everybody interested in the National Health Service. We are appalled by the large number of people—especially elderly people brought up at a different period of health education and having a different approach to the problem of the health of their eyes—who take it for granted that as they get older they will inevitably have eye trouble, whereas we know that if they could be provided with the services which are available at the right time and in the right way many of them would be able to enjoy far better sight.
It is not clear how far advertising is permitted to go. Is it possible to overprint spectacle cases with the name of the optician? Is it possible to have cleaning pads within the spectacle case with the name of the optician, or does that go against the rule? At a time when the Government declare that they are trying to bring prices down it is wrong for them to bring forward rules of this kind. I doubt whether, in the provision of this service, opticians will get a fair crack of the whip—but that is a much larger subject than is covered by this Statutory Instrument.
I hope that we shall not get ophthalmic services on the cheap for N.H.S. patients, merely by allowing large profits to be made on private practice because these rules do not provide adequate safeguards for the consumer.

11.2 p.m.

Commander Anthony Courtney: Up to a week ago I knew very little about opticians, except that I have a very good one myself, who provides me with bifocals, but I was approached by a friend on this subject,


and I have since consulted opticians in my constituency. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) that the information I have received is, on balance, contrary to the view which he has expressed. It is a matter of particular regret for me that I must disagree to some extent with my hon. Friend, to whom this House and the country owe so much for his sponsoring of the Opticians Bill, which came before the House in 1958, prior to my entering it.
In reading the Order we must get clear in our minds, exactly what we are trying to do. We are here to approve—in a negative form, perhaps—rules on publicity resulting from powers given by the Opticians Act, 1958, and primarily that contained in Section 25 (1,a), which regulates
the use … of any means of giving publicity … to their practice or business.
We must note that the word "publicity" in this context is very important. We go on to the rules themselves. In Section 11(3) of the same Act we provide for the names being erased—and this is a deprivation of their livelihood—of opticians who contravene the rules in the Statutory Instrument.
We have in these rules a total prohibition of publicity, with certain detained exceptions, which are set out. When considering the word "publicity" we must go back to definitions. The Oxford Dictionary defines publicity as
the business of making goods or persons publicly known.
In interpreting these rules in accordance with the definition which I have given of the word "publicity," Ministers must be extremely careful, and I hope to show why. In paragraph 7 of the rules the question of reminders is covered. By a positive rule, these must be addressed to a single person and must be in a sealed envelope which contains nothing else. I wonder how a sealed envelope, containing nothing but the letter addressed to an individual, can possibly be regarded as publicity within the meaning of the word as defined in the Oxford Dictionary?
There is also the consumer standpoint. I agree heartily with the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) about this. The Porritt

Report of last year emphasised the importance of the early detection of ocular diseases such as glaucoma. It is very important for children. The harassed parent knows how important it is for little Johnnie to go regularly to the optician to have his spectacles adjusted, quite apart from the problems of broken frames and missing screws which occur so frequently among the young.
The rules are so strict that no reminder may be sent by an optician more than once, except in special circumstances, and presumably this is the case even if the patient asks for it. We have a right to express the view that this is going a bit far in the detailed application of rules of this kind. I think that we can draw a useful parallel from dentistry. I know of no regulation which debars a dentist from writing to his patients saying that it is time they had their teeth examined, because they have not been to the dentist for six months. I do not know that there is a higher or lower standard of conduct in professional management in the dental profession than in the profession of optician, and I think that the same conditions should apply in respect of reminders in both professions.
I turn to an aspect of paragraph 14 to which hon. Members opposite have drawn attention These rules cover publicity "at and inside" the premises of opticians. There can be no argument about publicity concerning shop windows and perhaps showcases, but a display in the interior of a shop, perhaps with prices, is surely not publicity, taking the strict definition of the word as I have given it. Outside, yes; inside, I submit, the rule is extremely arguable.
I will not go into the question of prices except to agree with hon. Members opposite that this seems to be a restrictive practice which at least we on this side of the House should deprecate in every way. It seems to me that if we take a strict interpretation of the word "publicity," a legalistic mind could take a horse and cart through these regulations. In my Service we have people described as sea lawyers. In the profession of optician, which is a very highly rated profession, there may well be one mutineer who at some time will challenge some of these rules. He may send a third reminder card which


is more than 20 inches square and defy the General Optical Council to do anything about it—to strike him off the Register or anything else. I suggest that any Minister answerable would have the greatest difficulty in arguing the point.
I will take the hint given me by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and sit down. These rules are an extension of administrative law, of which the House is rightly suspicious. I suggest that they are far too detailed to be quite healthy, and although the House will pass the rules, I urge the Minister to look at them afresh and perhaps to introduce some supplementary ones.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I shall be brief. My hon. Friends have performed a valuable service tonight in calling attention to this Statutory Instrument. Before proceeding I must declare an interest. I am an ophthalmic optician and I wish to put on record a few points about the present position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) said that he would not like to see the ophthalmic service within the National Health Service obtained on the cheap. However, that is, in fact, happening in a way. It is being subsidised every day by people who are in private practice as ophthalmic opticians. I received a Parliamentary Answer this week to a Question I put about the fees paid to ophthalmic opticians working in the National Health Service. They are certainly not making great fortunes. Indeed, their fees have not altered since 1948—except for having been reduced by 1s. on one occasion. In real terms their fees would need to be substantially increased if they were to be brought up to the value of the fees given in 1948. Thus, National Health Service patients are being subsidised by those in private service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) expressed apprehension about the relationship between the ophthalmic optician and the patient. From my understanding of the Order I do not think that any limitation would be placed on a communication between an optician and his patient's doctor. The General

Optical Council is merely trying to prevent canvassing, although I appreciate that the rules may appear to have been drawn too tightly.
My hon. Friend is a member of the medical profession and must remember that the profession to which I belong has only recently been given statutory recognition. The members of my profession have a background of rather sharp commercial rivalries against which to work. I also agree with my hon. Friend that we are supplying in some instances an appliance which has a cosmetic character. It is necessary, as one moves towards higher professional standards, to try to restrain people from behaving as they did in pre-National Health Service days. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock would not like to see plastic surgeons in Harley Street advertising, "Come to me for that bit of plastic surgery; I will do the job properly and a little cheaper than the surgeon around the corner or down the road."
When we consider the question of prices I think it will be agreed that the National Health Service schedule should be widened. More modern appliances should be brought in because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West pointed out, only a small proportion of people want National Health appliances. I went to see the range within the Service improved; although, of course, the more exotic appliances can be paid for by people who really want them. However, nothing much will be done until the Government are prepared to renegotiate the fees the opticians receive, because at present they rely on that part of the trade. The House has done the right thing in considering this matter tonight and I am sure that benefit will arise from our discussions.

11.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): I have listened to what has been said with great interest. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) that it is right that hon. Members should probe into and inquire about these matters, although I am bound to tell the House that, apart from the Birmingham branch


of the Association of Optical Practitioners, there were only three other objections to the rules submitted to the Privy Council.
The fact is that in agreeing to pass into law the Opticians Act, 1958, Parliament decided that the optical profession was ready to become self-governing, in the same way as the medical and the dental professions. The usual pattern is for Statutes of this kind to confer on the profession itself all functions in connection with registration and the maintenance of professional conduct and discipline, but it is necessary for certain supervisory and appellate powers to remain with the central Government. These include such matters as the confirmation of the more important rules made by the governing body, and the hearing of certain appeals by individuals against decisions of the governing body. These powers are mainly exercised by the Privy Council.
A decision by Parliament that a profession should be allowed self-government contains the clear implication that the profession should, as far as possible, be free to manage its own affairs independently of the central Government; and that, therefore, the supervisory powers of the Privy Council should not be lightly used. These powers exist so as to ensure that the profession does nothing that is contrary to the wider public interest; and it is, of course, important to see to it that the profession's governing body is not proposing anything that conflicts with some other statutory provisions—as, for example, in this case, with opticians' terms of service under the National Health Service—or which would be damaging to the rights of individuals or in any other way contrary to the public interest.
But where rules are made bearing solely on professional matters, and no objections arise of the kind just mentioned, there is a strong presumption that neither the confirming authority nor Parliament should seek to amend them, bearing in mind particularly that they have been made by a body representative of the profession as a whole. It is against this general background that the relevant provisions of the Opticians Act, and the recommendations of the Crook Committee upon which they are based, must be examined.
The Opticians Act, 1958, was the direct outcome of the work of the Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Crook, which published a unanimous Report in 1952. Section 25 of the Act set out the various matters with respect to which rules could be made, and subsection (1,a) provided for rules
… prohibiting or regulating … the use by registered opticians and enrolled bodies corporate of any means of giving publicity, whether by advertisements or not, to their practice or business of ophthalmic or dispensing opticians …
The Act provided that rules made under Section 25 should not come into force until approved by order of the Privy Council.
In considering certain special problems, the Crook Committee dealt with advertising, and said that it felt
… that the General Optical Council should regard advertising as one of the subjects demanding their urgent attention.
It expressed the view that, if opticians were to become truly professional men, there should be very severe restrictions on advertising, and recommended that the Council
… should, at the earliest possible moment, issue guidance, both to ophthalmic and to dispensing opticians, about the form in which they are to be permitted to acquaint the public with the services they provide.
The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) referred to the explanatory notice about the rules issued last February by the General Optical Council. These notes are entirely a matter for the Council. They are not the concern of the Privy Council. They are merely intended as a helpful guide. Parliament's power is a negative one, in the sense that it can annul rules but is not required to approve them positively. In fact, the rules could quite properly have been brought into effect the day after they were laid before Parliament, subject to Parliament's right to annul them. So it does not seem improper for explanatory notes to be issued in advance, in order to clarify the position, to a responsible profession.
The Council does not regard the rules as applying to the normal use of a name and address on articles, such as spectacle cases or polishing cloths, supplied by opticians. They are designed to cover anything intended to give publicity to a practice or business. and the Council


hopes that those subject to them will use the means of publicity authorised only for the sake of giving useful information to the public or their clientele. The rules require all publicity to be
—of a dignified and restrained character and free from any reference to the efficiency of, or the facilities given by, other registered opticians or enrolled bodies corporate.
I suggest to the House that this general approach seems entirely reasonable. The detail into which the rules should go is for the profession to decide and it does not in principle seem to be a matter with which the approving body should concern itself, subject to what I have said about the over-riding public interest.
As for penalties, removal from the register is the normal ultimate sanction against unprofessional conduct in any profession, but the Disciplinary Committee will of course exercise its powers with good sense and discretion and will no doubt be as responsible in proposing drastic action in an alleged infringement of the rules as in any other disciplinary case. Where the Committee directs erasure from the Register Section 14 of the Act gives the optician the right of appeal to the Privy Council.
Rule 7 deals with the issuing of reminders about the testing of sight and Rule 8 with reminders about the supply of optical appliances. Hon. Members will be interested to know that ophthalmic and dispensing opticians who are under contract with the National Health Service to provide supplementary ophthalmic services are already subject to terms of service which include specific references to advertising. The hon. Member for Greenock asked about the notice which may be displayed, in a form specified by the Minister, indicating that the optician is qualified to provide services under the National Health Service Act, 1946, and that he is under contract with the local Ophthalmic Services Committee. That is totally unaffected. Otherwise, he may not advertise either directly or by implication that his name is included in an ophthalmic list or that he provides or is authorised to provide services under the Act.
The Terms of Service define the expression "advertise" in very wide terms indeed. They do not specifically refer to the issue of reminders. Nevertheless,

my Department has been in general agreement with advice given on the subject by the Association of Optical Practitioners to its members. The advice is that reminders should be sent only in cases where a re-examination is clinically necessary or the patient has requested it, that the reminder should be sent only once to each patient between examinations, and that reminders are intended for use only for patients who are likely to benefit from a re-examination. This advice has been acted on for a long time by a large number of ophthalmic opticians.
Rules 7 and 8 are less restrictive than the advice of the Association of Optical Practitioners. No reference is made to clinical necessity, the optician simply having to be of the opinion that a reminder is justified by the time which has elapsed since the last occasion when to his knowledge the patient's sight was tested or the optical appliance was supplied, or by other relevant circumstances. He is allowed further latitude to send one further reminder "in exceptional circumstances". When an optician considers that a patient needs another sight test within six months, he is required by his terms of service under the National Health Service so to inform the patient's general practitioner who thus has some responsibility for seeing that the patient goes for the test. This is the safeguard which has been worrying hon. Members. It is entirely separate from any reminder that the optician may send.
Rule 14 deals with the display of optical appliances at premises at which opticians practise or carry on their business. It provides that, while descriptive matter may accompany such appliances, no statement of prices may be displayed. The General Optical Council takes the view that it is not in the public interest to attach a statement of price to an article which will not be sold in the state displayed. It is impossible to give the public an indication of the amount which they would have to pay to cover professional services and the glazing of a frame and it is accordingly in the Council's view proper to prohibit the display of statements of prices.
Let hon. Members consider the matter in a practical sort of way. A member of the public sees an attractive frame in the window. It is marked 55s. This


seems reasonable and he goes into the shop and asks the optician about it. He says that he likes the 55s. frame but the optician tells him, "Yes but that is the cost of the frame; of course there will be the lens and the fitting—you can have it for £5 5s." I frankly suggest that the Council's view on this is absolutely proper. The contrary view is that to deprive the public of information as to what they will have to pay for any specific article which may be on display is to deprive them of a service to which they are entitled. There are two views to be taken about it. but I do not share the latter.
It has been suggested that Rule 7 could result in a lengthening of the interval between eye examinations, thereby hampering the medical campaign for the earlier detection of diseases of the eye.
I have a particular interest here because this is a health matter, but my Department takes the view that there is no danger in Rule 7 in this respect. The rule leaves it to opticians to decide what intervals between sight tests are justified, and provision is made for second reminders, which, in fact, is a relaxation of the practice widely adopted already. If a patient does not respond to such reminders, no useful purpose seems likely to be served by sending him any more. We, therefore, do not object to this rule on medical grounds.
It is not to be expected, of course, that the publicity rules will be wholly acceptable to all branches of ophthalmic and dispensing opticians. They have engaged the attention of the Council for a long time and, as is made clear in the explanatory notice to which the hon. Member for Greenock referred, they must be regarded as a compromise solution. Some members of the profession wish the Council to do everything possible to ensure high professional standards and would like to see the rules made even stricter. On the other hand, it is quite clear from what has been said, very sincerely, tonight that some opticians are uneasy about rules which they regard as unduly restrictive. I hope that hon. Members will, on reflection, agree that the forum for considering such differing points of view on professional matters must be the General Optical Council itself. That

is what Parliament originally intended. It would have been right for the Privy Council to refuse approval of the rules only if they were clearly against the public interest. There seems to be no good reason for arguing that they are.
The issue was put very clearly in the Ophthalmic Optician for 17th August last year. The editor said:
These rules will not please every optician … It is emphasised however that these rules must be, by the very nature of the diverse groups represented on the General Optical Council, a compromise. The Chairman has appealed to everyone to give them a trial …
I submit, with respect, that it would be reasonable for us also to take this view.
I do not doubt that, in the light of experience and informed comment, the Council will keep the operation of the rules under review. Indeed, the notice which it issued last February indicates that this is its intention. I hope that what I have said will persuade the House that the right course is to allow the Rules to come into force on 1st April as they stand, and that the hon. Member for Greenock and his hon. Friends will think it right to ask leave to withdraw the Prayer.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: This has been a useful debate, but it has also illustrated the great difficulty which the House has when considering delegated legislation. I think that most of us agree with most of these rules, but it is obvious that a substantial number of hon. Members and a substantial body of the profession do not like certain aspects of them. Yet it is not possible for us to amend them.
It was possible for the Privy Council to amend them, and I am not satisfied with the Parliamentary Secretary's statement on this point. In my view, the Privy Council should have seen to it that these rules were not quite as restrictive as they have proved to be, particularly in the respects to which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and others have drawn attention.
None of us would wish to hamper the General Optical Council in any way in its task of establishing professional standards. We want to help. But we feel that in some respects these rules impose


requirements on the profession which no other profession would tolerate—the meticulous detail as to the wording of letters, the frequency of reminders, and so on.
I suggest to my hon. Friends that they should not press the Prayer to a Division, but I hope that the General Ophthalmic Council, the Minister and the Privy Council will pay careful attention to what has been said in the debate and, perhaps, in due time provide revised rules of a slightly less restrictive nature.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: While reserving my position and that of my hon. Friends, whose criticisms, I feel, remain well founded, I accept the Minister's plea that we should give the rules a trial.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT, CUMBERLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

11.30 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Symonds: I raise once again the question of unemployment in Cumberland. It is not the first time this matter has been brought before this House. We have been asking over the last two years for something to be done in Cumberland. In the Whitehaven, Cleater Moor, Workington, and Maryport area we still have an average of 4·8 per cent. of unemployed, while the remainder of Cumberland has an average of between 2·2 per cent. and 2·4 per cent.
We have had promises of work to be brought to Cumberland. We have had promises that this will be done and that that will be done. It is some 12 months since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, after meeting a deputation, promised that something would be done in the best interests of our people in Cumberland to alleviate the unemployment there. We were told in 1962 that we would have 350 jobs within a period of two years. Furthermore, we have been told that there is a possibility that that will go

up to a figure of 500 by 1965. I am very sorry to say that we have not seen any of these promises fructify. I am wondering whether we shall have this figure of 4·8 per cent. reduced. I believe that it is just to be promise, promise, promise, but nothing done.
I well remember asking the Minister of Labour himself to try to put our boys and girls in that area, particularly in Whitehaven and Cleate Moor, into jobs. The reply I got from the Minister on 18th November, 1963, was that
the area is scheduled as a development district and the Youth Employment Service will continue to do all it can to help unemployed boys and girls to find a job.
I am very much afraid that the effort which has been made has certainly done very little to get employment for the young boys and girls.
I have put down Questions for answer by the President of the Board of Trade. A reply I got was that in view of all the circumstances none of the companies which have been wanting to develop or extend have gone to Cumberland, West Cumberland in particular, since any of the meetings last year. I have also approached the Minister for Science, and the Minister for Science sent me word to the effect that, as far as employment of personnel was concerned, the plant would have to be run down to find its normal level. At the same time no alternative was suggested by him for the purpose of bringing fresh employment to the area for the men displaced.
I quote a statement of the Parliamentary Secretary of more than 12 months ago when I raised this question:
I understand from the Authority that changes in the military programme will cause a small reduction in staff required at Windscale and Calder. … There is no question in present circumstances of changes on the scale of those at Caponhurst. Although redundancies in operational staff are not likely, the same cannot be said about constructional workers, many of whom may be discharged in the near future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1963; Vol. 670. c. 905–6.]
That is an admission that men would be discharged, but nothing has been done to find alternative employment for them.
I have already been told that there is a likelihood of the Government making a decision about nuclear power stations for the purpose of producing electricity in this country. We have the


"know-how" at Windscale and Calder Halt, but I have read of the possibility of a reactor coming from America or Canada, to be assembled in this country. It is a crying shame. Our men at Calder Hall, Capenhurst, Dounrea and such places have the ability to erect the plant, and electricity can be produced by our present type of reactor as cheaply as it can be produced by any American reactor. The only advantage is a slight cheapness in the cost of the American reactor.
Are British men to be denied the right of employment on the erection of the plant merely because the American reactor can be produced a little more cheaply? Surely our brains and ability are equal to those in America. A figure of 4,000 unemployed in Cumberland is very large. On average, they are being paid £5 a week—a total of £20,000—in unemployment benefit. Almost £1 million is spent in a year in unemployment benefit. Surely the Government can think of something better than spending £1 million in unemployment pay to our people in Cumberland.
I suggest that advance factories should be built. Let us ask the local authorities to submit schemes for the clearance of sites, instead of paying unemployment benefit to these men. We would then do something to provide jobs and give these men something to look forward to. I feel that our men will not stand the strain of signing on at the labour exchange much longer.
Other schemes of work have been submitted. As an illustration, there is the raising of the Ennerdale Lake, which will give employment for a large number of men in the area. I hope that the Minister of Transport will consider the A.5 and A.85. Provision has been made for half of that work to be undertaken. I hope the Minister will say that the 4½ miles of that road can be completed in order to give employment to the men in that area.
In the Adjournment debate last year on employment in West Cumberland the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said:
Few industrial areas have such a glorious hinterland. Nor does it suffer from overcrowding. The hell of the rush hour does not affect West Cumberland greatly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1963; Vol. 670, c. 908.]

Indeed, we have a grand place there. We have beautiful lakes which attract thousands of visitors. But what does the Minister of Transport do? He closes the railway line between Keswick and Carlisle, and he is proposing also to close the line between Workington and Keswick. The advertisements and the posters at the railway stations say "Visit the Lake District by train." Yet the Minister of Transport is cutting out the service which would bring people into the area to see the Lake District. If the railways are closed, it will mean that more men will be put out of work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) is also concerned about this matter and wishes to say a few words about another project relating to employment in the area. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be factual in telling us about projects, and that they will be projects which will give the men in Cumberland confidence that they will secure permanent jobs.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) on raising this subject, which is of great concern not only to his constituency but to mine and to that of the Parliamentary Secretary, and also that of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), who has a special interest in the future of our area.
I want the Parliamentary Secretary to know that we are anxious that Cumberland's case should be put. I hope that he will use. his influence to ensure that a deputation from the Cumberland Development Council will be received by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade. The application for the deputation was made some time ago; as yet we are not certain what the Minister has in mind, but the Council would like to meet him. After all, if we are thinking in terms of development, those on the spot ought to be consulted. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will make the necessary representations through his own Minister or directly to the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade.
The development of the reactor at Windscale is of major importance, and that the Parliamentary Secretary should


consult the Minister for Science and others who are responsible for this matter. We are anxious that the area should be considered for development. We have tremendous assets. West Cumberland and Cumberland generally have much to offer industrialists. There are the amenities of the Lake District. West Cumberland fringes perhaps the most beautiful part of the British Isles, and this in itself is an attraction for executives and management who wish to go there. Our people are gifted, kindly and hospitable. The industries which have gone there have been favourably received. The industrialists who have gone there have had a wonderful welcome, and many are now rooted in the area. Labour relations are good, on average better than in most parts of the country.
We are not pleading for industry to come there. We are merely telling industry and the Government that, for all the reasons which I have mentioned, "Here is an area which has great assets. Let us use them." For these reasons I am glad that an announcement was made by the Secretary of State the other day about the development of a factory in my constituency. I know that it will be welcomed in the area and that the industry will not regret it.
But there is something much more important. We must be concerned about communications generally in the area. That is why I was pleased that we had the announcement of the Leeming Plan, if I may call it that. I have had detailed communications with the Development Council and with Mr. Leeming himself about the report on the alternative water supply for Manchester. There was an excellent article in the Economist on 7th March. I do not always praise the Economist but it often gives very sound advice.
The article, on the proposed North-West barrage, was admirable although I cannot go into detail tonight. I have consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) and the hon. Member for Westmorland and generally we think that the barrage could be the answer to the area's problems.
It is an imaginative scheme. We would have a development of the south

part of Cumberland, fringing North Lancashire, and then we could have a major road development also affecting Morecambe, a coastal motorway up to Whitehaven, Workington, and then to Dumfries via some new development on the Solway Firth.
This could be the answer to the development of the area. New towns could be created and the whole area would be reinvigorated. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, apart from his responsibility for labour matters, will bear in mind that many of us feel that this sort of development is the solution to the problems of the North-West. I know that he will carefully consider the implications and convey to his right hon. Friend how we in the area, of all parties and all sections of the community, are anxious for careful consideration of this plan. There may be technical difficulties but here is something which could revitalise the area, create increased prosperity and offer a splendid future.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject. In the time at my disposal I have only been able to sketch the principles. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will give a favourable reply and that the viewpoints expressed tonight will be conveyed to his right hon. Friend and to other Ministers responsible.

11.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) has raised a subject in which, as he knows, I have a special constituency as well as a Ministerial interest. I am very glad that both he and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) spoke about the problems of Cumberland as a whole because I feel strongly that we in Cumberland must not allow the undoubted geographical differences to divide our consideration of the problems under the headings of West Cumberland on the one hand and the rest of Cumberland on the other.
We are supported in this view by the Cumberland Development Council which rightly seeks to promote employment throughout the whole county. I have noted what the hon. Member for Workington said about the deputation.


I think I am right in saying that on his recent visit to West Cumberland my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade met the Council. However, I will bring what the hon. Member has said to his attention.
I first want to set out the employment position for the whole of Cumberland and also to refer to some of the particular problems that have been raised. Cumberland, as all hon. Members present appreciate, is an area where the proportion of employees in agriculture and mining is above the national average while the proportion in manufacturing industry is below it. None the less, there have been significant changes in the composition of the labour force in Cumberland in recent years. Numbers employed in manufacturing and service industries have increased, more than compensating for the decline in agriculture and mining employment. As a result, the total number employed in Cumberland went up from 105,000 in 1952 to more than 113,000 in 1962—an increase of 7·7 per cent. in 10 years.
The total number of unemployed in Cumberland in mid-February this year was 3,911, giving an unemployment rate of 3·4 per cent. In the areas of both the Whitehaven and the Workington groups of employment exchanges the unemployment percentage was above the county average. In the Whitehaven area, which includes Cleator Moor, it was 4·8 per cent. In the Workington area, including Aspatria, Cockermouth and Maryport, it was 4·3 per cent. On the other hand, the rate for Carlisle and Brampton was 2·6 per cent., for Wigton 3·2 per cent., for Keswick 2·3 per cent., for Millom 2·9 per cent., and for Penrith 1·8 per cent.
There were 129 boys and 151 girls unemployed in Cumberland on 10th February, while on the same date there were 197 vacancies for boys and 174 vacancies for girls. That gives a very good answer to the hon. Member for Whitehaven's point about youth employment. These figures make it clear that that unemployment problems among young people now relate mainly to individual cases, and there is no doubt that there are reasonable prospects of placing the Easter school leavers. I hope that these figures put into perspective the nature and extent of the unemploy-

ment problems with which we are faced in Cumberland.
Taken as a whole, the county's main handicap as an employment area is its isolation and remoteness. This merely underlines the need for good communications, in particular for good roads. Industrialists in the area want improved roads and so also this is far the most important factor in attracting new industries to the area. The main plan for the future is to extend the M.6 motorway north from Lancaster and by-pass Penrith and Carlisle. West Cumberland will be linked to this new motorway. I noted what the hon. Member for Workington said about Mr. Leeming's plan, I can tell him that I, too, have received this plan in my private constituency capacity. Clearly, I cannot speak as a private Member in this debate, so it will be right for me merely to assure the hon. Member for Workington that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will certainly consider its implications.
In the meantime, I ought to refer to the considerable amount of work being carried out on existing roads in order to improve access, particularly to West Cumberland. For example, grants have been made to the Cumberland County Council towards the cost of by-passes at Portinscale and Threkeld on A.594 and Bolton Low Houses on A.595. Work is shortly to begin on extending the improvement on A.594 from the Portinscale by-pass to Braithwaite and the highway authority plans to continue the major improvement on A.595 from Cockermouth to Brigham.
I now turn to the Whitehaven and Workington areas where the main employment problem lies. Today, we hear a great deal about the need to change the industrial structure of particular areas through the introduction of new industries to replace the jobs lost in those which have declined. Although I accept at once that more needs to be done, a comparison of West Cumberland today with its position before the war reveals a remarkable transformation in this respect. The change in the industrial structure occurring in many other areas now has already taken place to a large extent in West Cumberland.
In recent years a number of firms, mostly of modest size, have established themselves successfully and are increasing their labour forces, and I should like to emphasise in this respect that firms of this sort are very valuable in some of the country towns in rural areas Much of this latter development has been based on the three Board of Trade Industrial Estates, Solway, Salterbeck and Hensingham. In particular employment on the Solway Estate has expanded considerably in recent years. Now an advance factory of 10,000 square feet has been built at Workington and is ready for occupation. I am glad to say that some interest has been shown in it. But as yet no firm application has been received.
But while new industries are introduced, the vital importance of existing and more traditional industries must never be forgotten. In the last year or two the fall in the demand for products from the Workington Iron and Steel Company and Distington Engineering Company has reminded us forcibly how much employment in the Workington area depends on their prosperity.
The Whitehaven and Workington areas are listed as development districts, and so they enjoy the full facilities of the Local Employment Acts of 1960 and 1963 and of the free depreciation allowances given in last year's Budget. Assistance to industry in development districts in Cumberland under these Acts in the period April, 1960, to February, 1964, has totalled £699,000. There have been 35 applications for standard grants under the Local Employment Act 1963 from 25 firms. As a result of these various measures new jobs will be brought into

the area both through the introduction of new firms and the expansion of some firms already there.
In this connection I am glad to support what was said by the hon. Member for Workington about the encouraging announcement in The Times that Thames Board Mills are thinking of setting up a large wood pulp and packaging board factory at Workington which would employ up to 500 people by 1966. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade has said that the Board of Trade would be able to give "valuable help" in the establishment of such a factory.
For the longer term, Cumberland has been included in the area for the North-West Study which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade on 2nd March. Therefore, I can assure the hon. Member for Workington that there will be a detailed consideration of the County's requirements upon which plans can be based.
In replying to the hon. Gentleman I have endeavoured to put Cumberland's employment position in perspective and to set out what has been done, what the Government are doing and plan to do to improve the County's prospects.
What I have said proves conclusively that even if Cumberland is somewhat isolated and remote from the main industrial centres, it is certainly not being forgotten or neglected by the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.